
{"/ : i vf . t ' jS f 5. r if if !•; 


uiiliii IWEmiiipr- 

' . .: ..t ,; \- 

S <•}?£*?«£ 

f i i I - t v i V' , I V . 

- -jl. .Hifu.-I/pu- 

iVf' < \ /).-■' J • V'f .!■: f.tu ; 

■; >ir-i 
} ‘:;VV;K<KHi! h:-S 

'f it' -1 jif-r ; ’ fit'fiiir;. 

. ’ If? /' v f • ri.-'C .-i." : f J t -• r 

;ii: ■■ • iW/\. ifi i-i »i 

■ ■: ; .•• ■ ■ - 

!•?.: i 1, *'» rlflt i fff Ir 


>, f. '. ., tv r>; it« 

rV’-t 1 f ; 1 ?* (‘.titlii 

i , :. ■ 

f ; ! ' • 

; •..•••■ i• nthinr! 

rl) • rtfsiflf 

I . • < 


K -1 

t i •• :v s -» f 

l Sjsjf i f *. ‘,4-i 

‘ ; ? V ; j ■: v: 


Vi if 


rmmlH 

1 ; iil f 


rVf *tv: 

- t • T • * : 




. 


tfj 




tit 


n 


,i .«_**■*» 

Will 




* ‘ . * « ,* * , . 


• 


m 


m 




'■i 


«£5 




♦ -n\ kx Ai ° -<£* c/ * 

° °j> v* 

° o^A. 

* A V o 

* v * G V * 

\ V <4 O » * 

_ 4 ^ „ L ' « ^' f\ 

^ <N * K?rCf//?-?_ ■y 

V>* 4 *> &[\//%>C? ^ *P V 

V . < V* r\> 


J- * 4 ^ 

*.v ♦ A 

^ ' .. s 4 A 




\0 * 7*1 * &'^s*k 5 s £ / ' > \v? * * 4 . o 

* r\ * ^^HxvVsis^ * k ' 

;1 f° V *.*<>»^ O 

<, ^ V *> T. * 

o ‘xv a » JrJot, ^ -o. * 

V.y » SfflliS <£* A v *,c 

^ t^\ //. o 




>° N ^ ^ 1 °'% ; @^ !i '<’' «5 < 3 * ■ 

• 4 J ^ A ^- |A q^\l\V\V\i V 1 > 

<£> * O N 0 0 <0^ ' O * • * Q ' <£■ •* NSvP * A F’ O 

. . • •, ^ 4 , v y . *u 6,1 a u ^ * ° * 0 0 ,■ v q, 

* - ^ S V * * * °-- O *0’ . S * 0 / V> *\ „ . *2* 

*<> AV * j4Vtf5TA, O <*> ^ . c£>> A. ► . fS. 5i • 



^ -''%ii\\nns> » k\- rv * * > $9 ;c^>; ^*4 o. 

'- ^ * N ’••- *«. J- °'° v y ... °-^ 

iv „ „ .-j. A ^> t .• ^ v (> _ 4 - C 1 

t(\\ W A ^ * 

> (™//A o ^ £ 

.^***$A 'S' 

- 4 -V ^ - WBU _ .■' , V* o^l ^ A? vO, 

°*» 0 \D ♦7^ r s% A, > *, 

> o « o ^ oA V. ° * * ' O’ A 

^ °0 >■*> r‘^+ ^ , 0 ^ o oNo -» A> 

* '^ xx ' , ' w * a N * &J}77sb'' -y C • «• q ^ 4 

^ N 9 *P V » ' sKSXXW - 

o V » < v* o v 0 







$> * 0 „ 0 0 A* ° 

* • • / > < y 






9 r 



c • 

^ o x : 

A o. 

_ * qS cv * 

r ^ '•««’ .^ °^ *•■’ 

' v\V‘/* > V .!•»- CV • 

•» .^i »0 -i S^nwn© \ V 

o “' xvr * ^ 


**4 

; ^ % 

** ,0* < ^'*^T 4 ’ A <,'-••"* A° 

QV c o “ a * *A . t ' ® - <$*< ^ 




V 

<* °.‘ v 


^ ' 
i a <5> 

0 

i ^ 


^ Jfn/ 

k &Z\\b 

/yy^>\ rsr 
'/Z>> * < 



* <f? ^ 

• , 0 Y V "' o o / 

C° °o £ 

+2. A 


*■ 0 


AO' . . „ 

Y o <S) r£* > " " S V^' 3 ~ • *0- 

o, * * * ’* A 0 «> * © « 0 Ay 


a 0 

L *o ^ A .* 

« °V S S 

• o>*V • 

* ^ °, 

> ■•'..••Va .o 

^ . v . . * <P 0 0 

^ 1 1 y 1 i /vl< 7 - f C; • 

r - O ^ * rrrJ^- — 

*&• *•,* , T r* ,oc o 






* •O* CV 

. ,v-* ' 

„V 'V, V ° 

- .V r ^TT« v* ^ 

,/ *+ 

* ^ A ~ -V' '. «•- A -'*■ 





o K 


A v <?■> * 0 " 0 \ *V> 'V- 

T S ‘V. V v ^ Oo ' 



°o 




♦ .9 % ^ 

0 N 0 \v ~ 4 - 

V V 

. ^ ^ 

' vv 



y •.?.t-- ; /X % —- ^ % -• 

^ , c ^ ?£m&* * 


« 

^ 0 



^ ■ 

.K o n o 

’*•'. V > 0 V 

° ^ , V * 


J°v 





• A ^ 

* <t? °c> * 

* & * 

• A 0 • ^ 

.0 V C°" c - C 

c /<^§&rV & 



° \P<9 

; ^ °o # 

\ r <s fo * * 

% y v ** 

: $ ■*+ 


>>° ■%_ 

“V. ''T^C*’ a 5 ' °o ''????•'&* +» 

o’ ,kVl% - > | .v ^ a° aJmuv:. 

r>/V ,^\\\^Sv 7 A 0 " o V 



* S ^ 

A 0 ' V *»io 9 ^ 

r ^ b> v *y£\ % 

° <y * 

z v^V 

* <»> u c> ° 

o « » 





. _ ^ *»> 

' , , • ,0 * 0 * 0 -’ <b 

,<y ,*vi% b> v % ^ t *° 

* ++** 

vv 


° ,<? : 


>v 


o 

„ y V ' 4- C, ' Ay, ^ 'O . , - -0 v5 v • o S % 

V. ' ^ „ N 0 00 0 «■' ® „ „ 0 ^ C ^o^ 































THE SEWAGE OF WORCESTER IN ITS RELATION TO 

THE BLACKSTONE RIVER. 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

07 

Joint Standing Committee on Public Health, 

ON THE MATTER OF 


RESTRAINING- THE CITY OF WORCESTER FROM 
POLLUTING BLACKSTONE RIVER. 

0 


FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1882. 


R. M. MORSE, Jun., 
GEORGE A. FLAGG, 

For Petitioners. 


F. P. GOULDING, 

City Solicitor, 

For City of Worcester, 


BOSTON: 

| to (£0., printers tc t|je Crnmnonteltfu 

117 Franklin Street, 

1882 . 










By Trausu' 


& 


JUN 8 ' M 









i 


- <• . 


« 4 






JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH. 


Messrs. NATHANIEL A. HORTON of Essex, 

CHARLES Q. TIRRELL of Middlesex, 
DANIEL B. INGALLS of Worcester, 

Of the Senate. 

* Messrs. ARTHUR H. WILSON of Boston, 

JOHN C. RAND of Medford, 

GEORGE D. CHAMBERLAIN of Cambridge, 
JOSEPH P. HAMLIN of Boston, 

JONAS C. HARRIS of Arlington, 

DAVID W. HODGKINS of Brookfield, 
JOHN B. CAMPBELL of Boston, 

CHARLES SMITH of Andover, 

Of the House. 



* 









HEARING- 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH. 


State House, Boston, Feb. 21, 1882. 

The Chairman (Senator Horton). The hearing this morning is 
upon the whole question of Worcester sewage in its relation to the 
Blackstone River. Last year there was a petition from parties in the 
town of Millbury, asking legislation for the prevention of the pollu¬ 
tion of the Blackstone River, by the emptying into it of the sewage of 
Worcester, which the Committee on Public Health considered. They 
viewed the locality, and, partly in view of the magnitude of the sub¬ 
ject, and partly in view of the limited time at their disposal, the} r 
reported a recommendation that the whole subject be referred to the 
State Board of Health to make such recommendations for the action 
of the present Legislature as they might deem advisable. Although 
there has been, as I understand it, no formal renewal of the petition 
from parties in the town of Millbury, the whole subject is nevertheless 
referred to this Committee, under the rule, as it is presented in this 
report: and I desire to sa}’ to both parties in interest here (presuming 
that there will be two parties as there were last year), that, speaking 
for myself, and not for the Committee, I have not as yet read this 
report; and the same is true of other members of the Committee. 
We shall make no report to the Legislature, however, until we have 
carefully examined the Report of the State Board ; and simply state 
these facts that those interested may understand the unbiassed frame 
of mind in which we approach the consideration of the subject, which 
is now open. We are ready to hear any suggestions which the parties 
in interest have to make. 

OPENING ARGUMENT BY HON. R. M. MORSE, Jun. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen ,—I appear in behalf of the town of 
Millbury, to ask the Committee, in the light of the Report of the 



6 


State Board of Health, to consider what measures should be adopted 
and reported to the Legislature in reference to the pollution of the 
Blackstone River by the sewage of the city of Worcester. It may 
tend to shorten this hearing, and facilitate the work of this Commit¬ 
tee, if I occupy a little time in the opening bj 7 a statement of the his- 
tor} 7 of this matter to its present condition, and of the reasons for 
legislation. 

Prior to 1867 there was no statute under which the Blackstone 
River was authorized to be used for the purposes of sewerage. The 
river had run there from time immemorial, and it had had upon its 
banks a large and bus} 7 population. The city of Worcester and 
various towns to the north and south of it had grown up ; large indus¬ 
tries had been established, and had flourished ; and there had unques¬ 
tionably been, in the ordinary course of things, more or less pollution 
of the original purity of the water of the river. Still, no municipal 
action had been taken by which the character of the stream had been 
essentially changed ; and each party who used the water of the river, 
whether for domestic purposes, for purposes of manufacture, or for 
drainage purposes, used it under the general common-law principle 
by which such use was subject to the equal rights of others. If any 
individual made any unreasonable or improper use of the water, he 
was liable to be restrained upon application to the Supreme Court, 
and was liable in damages for the injury that he did. This was 
the condition of things prior to 1867. In that year the Legislature 
passed an Act, chap. 106 of the Acts of that year, which authorized 
the city of Worcester, among other things, to change the channel of 
Mill Brook, which is a large tributary of the Blackstone River, and 
to use it for the purposes of a common sewer of that city; and the 
city, since that date, acting by authority of that Act, has adopted 
various orders which are stated in the case of Butler v. Worcester, 
reported in the 112 Massachusetts Reports, p. 541, by r which it 
condemned the brook as a sewer. It has taken a number of years 
for the city to bring its water-supply and its system of sewerage to 
completion ; and, as I am informed, it is only within a short time, 
comparatively, that the entire sewage of the city has been discharged 
by means of Mill Brook into Blackstone River. The fact, however, 
as I now understand it, is, that the city, acting under this special 
authorit} 7 of the Legislature, and of course not having the power 
without that special Act, has discharged, and is now discharging 
and proposes to discharge, the entire sewage of the city into this 
comparatively small stream. 

Worcester is a city of something like sixty thousand inhabitants. 
In addition to its large number of dwelling-houses, it has very laro-e 
and extensive manufactories; and the discharge from those manufac- 



7 


tories, in addition to the discharge from the dwelling-houses, is 
calculated to create, and does create, very extensive and serious 
pollution of the waters of the river. The result has been, that within 
the last few years, beginning back as far as 1872, there has been a 
great deal of complaint, always increasing, of the injury which is 
caused by this sewage to the people that inhabit the banks of the 
Blackstone below Worcester, and who use the water of the river. 
A nuisance has gradually arisen on that stream. It is felt, of course, 
principally at Millbury, which is the first considerable town below 
Worcester; but it extends to a greater or less degree to all the places 
within the limits of the State, between Worcester and the Rhode Island 
line. The elfect of discharging this immense amount of sewage into 
the river every da}' has been to fill up the mill-ponds, and render the 
water unfit for manufacturing purposes, and to create an offensive 
smell, which, in various ways, has affected the public health, or is 
calculated to affect seriously the public health ; and the worst of the 
whole matter is, that the nuisance must necessarily increase, and 
that, if we leave matters in the condition in which they now are, 
there is practically no remedy but the absolute removal of the resi¬ 
dences and the business of the people that occupy the Blackstone- 
river Valley below the city of Worcester. It will be found, I think, 
when this subject is investigated, that there is no place in this State, 
probably none in this country, where the evil of river pollution is so 
far reaching and so serious in its consequences as in this case of the 
Blackstone River. This is due to a variet}’ of circumstances. First, 
because Worcester is one of the largest inland cities; secondh T , be¬ 
cause the stream is one of the smallest upon which a considerable 
inland city is situated ; and thirdly, because there is no river in the 
country upon which, in so short a distance, there is crowded so large 
and valuable an amount of manufacturing industry as here. The 
Committee, therefore, can be satisfied, that, in dealing with this ques¬ 
tion, thev are dealing with a matter which is most serious to those 
affected by it, and most important as a precedent for future legisla¬ 
tion. 

The question is a new one in the legislation of this country. V 7 hat 
shall be done to prevent the pollution of rivers? It is an old one in 
other countries. In England and on the continent of Europe, the 
matter of the pollution of rivers is receiving very great and serious 
attention; and, as a result, no considerable city or town has been 
permitted to discharge its sewage into rivers without adopting some 
adequate system of purification. But in this country, where we have 
been inclined to help ourselves to water-supplies without any restric¬ 
tion, and to discharge our sewage anywhere that it is convenient, 
without consideration, we have gone on in a hap-hazard, negligent 


8 


wa}f, until we are being confronted with the serious evil of one city 
or municipality encroaching most dangerously upon the rights, upon 
the property, and upon the health of other communities. We need 
to go back, Mr. Chairman,- to the old principle, always true, that 
one shall not use his own in such a waj^ as to injure the rights of 
others; and we are going to ask you, gentlemen, in this hearing, 
so far to rectify and amend the legislation of 1867 as to put into 
it, in effect, the qualification that should have been there when it 
was passed, to wit, that, when the city of Worcester uses the Black- 
stone River for the purposes of sewage, it shall do so subject to the 
equal rights of the other cities and towns upon the river. 

I think it is desirable, especially for the benefit of those gentlemen 
who were not members of this Committee last year, that I should 
refer, in proof of what I have been saying, to the action of the State 
Board of Health during the last ten years. I refer, in the first place, 
to the Report of that Board in 1873. In that Report, at p. 89, they 
say, — 

“Although one of the streams which unite to form the river is extremely 
foul (being, in fact, dilute sewage), yet we find that the amount of impurity 
from this and other sources which remains in the river, by the time it reaches 
Blackstone, is very small, compared with the bulk of water.” 

That was the view taken by the State Board of Health on this 
question at that time. The evil had not then assumed any great 
magnitude, but it indicates the position which this Board early took 
upon the question. 

In the Report made in 1874, p. 82, the condition of things is re¬ 
ferred to, and is stated to be substantially the same; although the 
Board say, “An analysis might, and probably would, show the 
amount of impurity to be somewhat increased.” At pp. 109, 110, 
of the same Report, they refer to the serious nuisance that will be 
created by this sewage. The Committee will find at p. 109 a long 
report, made to the State Board of Health, at their request, by 
Pliinelias Ball, entitled, “ The opportunity and possibility of utilizing 
sewage in the city of Worcester,” Mr. Ball being a distinguished 
civil engineer, at one time mayor of the city of Worcester, and 
always, I believe, a resident thereof. This report is devoted to a 
consideration of the serious nature of the nuisance, and of the 
opportunities the city of Worcester has for abating it, and for 
utilizing the sewage. 

Tn 1875 an Act was passed (chap. 192) to provide for investigat¬ 
ing the question of the use of running streams as common sewers ; 
and, in pursuance of that Act, an extensive investigation was made 
of the Blackstone River as the one first demanding attention. In 


9 


the report for 1876 the State Board of Health, on p. 173, say of the 
Blackstone River, “It is probably more polluted than any other river 
in Massachusetts.” 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Committee must understand that this 
action of the State Board of Health has been mainly of their own 
motion, and in pursuance of their duty to observe matters affecting 
the health of important communities in the State. Here is a series 
of reports to which I invite the careful attention of the Committee, 
showing that, } T ear after year, the attention of the Board of Health 
was called to the necessity of doing something to remedy an evil that 
was sure to increase. During this time the city of Worcester has 
not been unobservant of what has been going on. It would be doing 
great injustice to the authorities and citizens of the city to suppose, 
for a moment, that they r overlooked the fact that the discharge of the 
sewage into the Blackstone River was calculated to cause injury to 
the towns and industries below them ; and I think that the Committee 
will find, in the inaugural addresses of several mayors of that city r , 
and in various reports that were considered by’ the city r governments, 
allusions, more or less distinct and significant, to the evil which the 
city of Worcester was causing to its neighbors, and to the necessity 
of taking some action to prevent it. 

I have here the inaugural addresses o£ two mayors of the city' of 
Worcester. I desire to call attention to the address of Hon. Henry 
Chapin, mayor ad interim , made on the 2d of January, 1871, in 
which he say’s, — 

“The introduction of water from Lynde Brook seemed to make it necessary 
that some means should be devised for its disposition, in order that what was 
designed for a blessing might not prove to be an evil in disguise. When the 
system contemplated shall be consummated, and we are relieved of the danger 
which threatens us, another and vastly important question will present itself, 
which is even now extensively agitated. That question is, Cannot there be 
some method devised by which the sewage of the city may be utilized? Enough 
fertilizing power goes to waste, in the usual method of sewerage of our cities, 
to furnish the means of enrichment to the surrounding country. I hesitate not 
to prophesy that the time will come, sooner or later, when the sewage of the 
city of Worcester will be so utilized as to become, not only a source of income 
to the city, but to make many a field a garden, and many a neighborhood to 
blossom like the rose.” 

These observations were directed mainly to the use of the sewage 
as a matter of profit to the city, a use which we hope can be combined 
with the abatement of the nuisance to the inhabitants along the river 
below. I desire further to call the attention of the Committee to the 
inaugural address of his Honor, George F. Verry, made to the city 
of Worcester on the 1st of January, 1872. I beg the Committee to 
notice that this was years before the completion of the system of 


10 


sewerage, and at a time when the nuisance had not reached its present 
proportions. He says, — 

“ The present sewer from what is called the Piedmont District empties into 
Mill Brook below Sargent’s card factory; and, when the waters of this brook 
are diverted, there will be no means of carrying the sewage off. Deposited 
upon this low land, and remaining there, it would be likely to breed a pestilence 
in that neighborhood. It will, therefore, probably be necessary to extend that 
sewer through this low T land, so as to connect it with the main sewer at or near 
Cambridge Street. 

“It may also become necessary to provide a remedy for the mischief which 
our sewage is in danger of doing to the waters of the Blackstone River, into 
which it is in great part conveyed. Complaints, whether w r ell or ill founded, 
are not infrequent from those who reside and do business along its valley, that 
the stream is greatly polluted from this cause. If these apprehensions are 
well founded, the business of providing a remedy will deserve, as I have no 
doubt it will receive, your earnest and immediate attention. No argument is 
necessary to enforce the performance of the duty of self-preservation, which 
we owe to ourselves. None should be needed to enforce the performance of 
that other duty ‘ So use your own as not to injure another,’ which we owe to 
our neighbors. 

“ The subject of providing means for utilizing our sewage has been hereto¬ 
fore discussed, and has been recommended as a profitable enterprise in a pecu¬ 
niary point of view. Of this I have no knowledge; but I am advised by the 
city engineer that a plan of utilizing the sewage can be adopted which is feasi¬ 
ble, and which will at the same time relieve the Blackstone of the nuisance 
complained of, which plan will be submitted to your consideration if it shall be 
your pleasure to desire it. I would therefore recommend that an investigation 
of these matters be, as soon as practicable, entered upon with the view of pro¬ 
viding a remedy, if one is required.” 

I do not understand that any specific action was taken upon this 
recommendation of Mayor Verry. The city went on increasing its 
discharge of sewage into the river, spending, as I was informed, last 
year, — and I presume that the statement was substantially correct, — 
a million and a half of dollars in providing a very complete system of 
sewage for the city; complete, that is to say, in this, — that it en¬ 
abled all its citizens to empty their filth into the Blackstone River. 
It has also expended, as I am informed, a million and a half of dol¬ 
lars for its water-supply. But though the city has thus spent three 
millions of dollars in providing itself with an ample supply of water, 
and an admirable system of sewerage, it has not spent a dollar that 
I am aware of in the adoption of any practicable plan for dimin¬ 
ishing the injury which it was causing to its neighbors and friends 
along the Blackstone River below the city. It has had warning after 
warning from its mayors and its city engineers. It has been told that 
it was causing a nuisance, and yet that the very cause of the nuisance 
could be utilized to give it a profit, to all of which the city gave no 
serious attention. In that state of things last year, a very large 


11 


number of petitioners came before the Legislature asking aid from 
the Legislature. They came from Millbury and from the towns be¬ 
low. I believe that all the localities and all the industries to the 
south of Worcester, and within the limits of this State, were repre¬ 
sented before this Committee. We had patient and careful attention 
from the Committee. The city 7 " of Worcester was represented b}’ its 
chief magistiate, and was heard by its able counsel. The Commit¬ 
tee took a view of the locality, and saw for themselves what 
the evil was, and what it was likely to be. We presented a bill 
requiring the city of Worcester to take some definite action. The 
Committee, however, as the chairman has stated, in view of the 
magnitude of the question, and of its novelty, to some extent, were 
unwilling peremptorily to order the city of Worcester to abate this 
nuisance ; and therefore they came to the conclusion, in their wisdom, 
that the proper thing to do was to send this whole matter to the State 
Board of Health, an impartial, intelligent, and competent tribunal, 
and ask them to investigate it, and to report to this Legislature 
whether a practicable plan for the removal of this nuisance could be 
adopted. 

The State Board of Health, in obedience to that resolve, have taken 
up the subject. 

Mr. Goulding. You mean the State Board of Health, Lunac} 7 , 
and Charity? 

Mr. Morse. Yes, sir ; but the lunacy and charity divisions of the 
Board were not specially concerned with this subject. 

Mr. Goulding. Millbury was not investigated. 

Mr. Morse. The Board referred this subject to a commission of 
three experts, whose expenses were authorized to be paid by the Gov¬ 
ernor and Council. I mention these facts because, in considering the 
weight to be given to their report, it should be borne distinctly in 
mind that the town of Millbury, the petitioners in this case, and the 
other persons aggrieved b} 7 the nuisance, had nothing to do with the 
selection of the commission. The Committee will find the report of 
the Board of Health on this subject in the general Report of the Board 
for the present } 7 ear. The first reference to the matter is on p. lxv : — 

“ As the consideration of this report . . . will bring more directly to public 
attention than ever before the rapidly increasing pollution of streams not used 
as sources of water-supply for domestic uses (but which, as in the case of the 
Blackstone at Millbury, are becoming too foul even for manufacturing pur¬ 
poses, and as objectionable to residents on their banks as open sewers would 
be), it is time to ask whether the State must not take one step more, and protect 
rivers not used for domestic water-supply in the interests of the residents upon 
their banks, and of the manufacturers themselves. A comparison of tbe 
chemical analyses of waters of the Blackstone River made in 1881 with a large 
number made by the State Board of Health in 1875 reveals a very serious 
increase in the percentages of polluting matter.” 


12 


I will read the resolve of last year upon which the Board acted : — 

“Resolved, That the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity is hereby 
authorized and directed to examine and consider the question of the disposition 
of the sewage of the city of Worcester, especially with a view to prevent the 
pollution of the Blackstone River and its tributaries, and report its conclusions 
in print to the next Legislature, with recommendations as to a definite plan for 
the prevention of such pollution. For this purpose the Board may employ such 
assistants, and incur such engineering or other expenses, as shall be approved 
by the Governor and Council. ” Approved May 12, 1882. 

After quoting this resolve, the Report of the Board (p. G6) sa} T s, — 

“The Board at once entered upon the investigation of this question, and, 
after due notice given to all the parties in interest, spent parts of two days, 
early in July, in Worcester, when a hearing was had, at which appeared the city 
of Worcester and the town of Millbury, represented by city and town officers, 
or committees duly appointed. One result of this hearing was, that the Board 
voted to request the city of Worcester and the town of Millbury to submit in 
writing such evidence of experts, as to methods of disposal of the Worcester 
sewage, as each municipality should deem proper, especially with a view to 
prevent the pollution of the Blackstone River and its tributaries. Another 
was, that Dr. C. F. Folsom of the National Board of Health, J. P. Davis, C.E., 
of New York, and Dr. II. P. Walcott, health officer of this Board, were 
appointed a committee to consider the matter of the disposal of Worcester sew¬ 
age, and report their conclusions to this Board. They have presented their 
report with plans and estimates of expense, which, together with the documents 
furnished by the town of Millbury, will be found in the special Sanitary 
Appendix. Our recommendations as to a definite plan for preventing the 
further pollution of the Blackstone River are given in Part Fifth.” 

I may add, in this connection, that, of the gentlemen appointed, 
Dr. Walcott is of course known to this Committee as the health offi¬ 
cer of the Board. Dr. Folsom is a distinguished expert upon this 
class of subjects ; and Mr. Davis was formerly city engineer of Boston, 
one of the most distinguished ever in its employ, and the one who 
laid out the extensive system of sewerage which is now in course of 
construction in that cit} T . 

A further reference to this subject is to be found on p. ccviii, 
under the title, “ The disposal of the sewage of the city of Worces¬ 
ter.” 

I will not read that in detail, because I propose to refer in another 
connection to the plans that are recommended. I will say, however, 
that the Board there state, as the result of the investigation of this 
commission, that they recommend the system of “ intermittent down¬ 
ward filtration,” supplemented, if necessary, by broad irrigation, as 
best adapted to the existing state of things, and the best method of 
disposing of the sewage of the city of Worcester. The Committee 
will also find in the Appendix to the Report of the State Board of 
Health, on p. 117, the detailed report of the experts, which states 


13 


most if not all of the facts that the Committee will desire to have 
before them in determining the question now under consideration. 
That report occupies a good many pages. It shows the extent to 
which the river is polluted by sewage, the amount of the ordinary 
flow of the river, of the sewage, and the reasons for recommending 
the specific plan before mentioned. On p. 134 in the Appendix will 
be found a report from the town of Millbury, a communication from 
a committee of that town to the secretar}” of the State Board of 
Health, Lunacy, and Charity, transmitting a report prepared for that 
town by George E. Waring, jun., a distinguished expert upon sani¬ 
tary matters, which is printed on p. 137 of the Appendix. I may state 
that Col. Waring was employed by the town of Millbury at their own 
expense to consider this subject, and to make a recommendation of 
a practicable method for disposal of the sewage. Appended to that on 
p. 145 is an estimate of the cost of the plan recommended by Col. 
Waring, signed by two civil engineers of reputation, Mr. Ball and 
Mr. Heald, and by Amos Pike, contractor. I may state here for 
the information of the Committee, that, as I understand the two plans 
that are recommended, — one by Col. Waring, and the other by the 
experts selected by the State Board of Health, — tliey^ agree in this, 
that it is essential that the sew'age of the city r should be kept sepa¬ 
rate from the ordinary flow' of the stream. As we now look at it, 
that principle should have been understood and stated when this 
system of sewage w r as first entered upon by the city of Worcester. 
It would have saved a good deal of cost and trouble, if at that 
time the whole matter had been carefully investigated ; and I assume 
that the city of Worcester would then have been more ready than it 
is to-day to adopt such a system. But the city came here and got 
its legislation, and then adopted its system of sewerage without 
consideration, in fact, of other localities. It looked to w'liat would 
be the best for its own interests. Whereas, upon consideration, I 
believe the city would say that it ought to have taken into account 
the interests and rights of others. The city did, however, adopt the 
system without regard to its effect upon the people below; and under 
that system they have used one channel, the old channel of Mill 
Brook, with such alterations of it as they have found it convenient to 
make for the disposal, not only of the ordinary flow of the stream, 
but of the entire sewage. 

Now, both Col. Waring and the commission of experts say that 
that is a wrong principle, and that it is essential that the sewage of 
the city should be kept distinct from the ordinary flow of the stream. 
The main difference between the two plans recommended, as I under¬ 
stand it, is this : that the commission of experts report that it is 
desirable and necessary to construct two lateral sewers, one on either 


14 




side of Mill Brook, into which the sewage shall flow, and that the 
sewage kept separate in that way from the ordinal’} 7 flow of the 
stream shall be carried down to a point below the city where it can 
be pumped up, and then allowed to flow upon a large tract of cheap 
land to be specially prepared for the purpose, the flowing to be con¬ 
ducted under a system of intermittent filtration, — that is to say, using 
a portion of the land one week, and another portion another. In 
this way the sewage will be purified ; and the water, freed from the 
offensive matter, will then go, by a course shown on the plans, back 
into the river. This plan allows the ordinary flow of Mill Brook to 
go directly into the Blackstone River. It takes the sewage of the 
city in separate sewers to localities where its contents can be purified 
and the water returned to the river. 

That is the plan recommended by this commission. It requires a 
large outlay, but the expense is not excessive as compared with the 
amounts which the city of Worcester has already invested in its 
water-supply and sewage system, nor is it beyond the reasonable 
ability^ of the city to make such an expenditure. It is a proper part 
of the cost of its water and sewerage systems. The cost of this plan 
is estimated by the commission at $408,490 ; this estimate including 
the separate system of sewers, pumping-station, land, and land 
damages, the preparation of the land, and all other items. To this 
the commission add, that, if a system of utilizing the sewage should 
be entered upon, it will involve a further outlay of one hundred tliou- 
• sand dollars. That is, of course, a matter which concerns the city T of 
Worcester more than it does anybody else. For the purpose merely 
of removing the nuisance, an expenditure of four hundred thousand 
dollars in the first place is unquestionably needed. 

Col. Waring, on the other hand, reports, that in his opinion it is 
practicable to divide the channel of the present sewer, Mill Brook, 
into three channels, and to make the lateral sewers that I have spoken 
of, inside of the present large sewer. In other w r ords, he avoids the 
expense of constructing new sewers, and believes that the existing 
sewer would be sufficient, if property divided. The Board of Health 
do not agree with him in that opinion. The expense of carrying out 
the plans proposed by Col. Waring is $206,500. I may say that he 
proposes to discharge the sewage, and to purify it at a different point, 
and in a somewhat different manner from those recommended by the 
plan of the experts’ commission; but that is not very essential to 
the point under consideration. 

The Committee, then, will have before them two possible practica¬ 
ble methods for purifying this sewage. Each of them undoubtedly 
involves considerable expense. To remedy an evil of this magnitude 
must cost a large sum ; but it is an expense which, sooner or later, 


15 


must be met, and it is less now than it will be hereafter. I sav it must 
be met, because the Committee are brought face to face with this 
alternative; and every Committee of the Legislature will be, until 
the question is decided, either that the city’ of Worcester, in conse¬ 
quence of taking this brook for a sewer, and discharging its sewage 
into it, is thereby entitled to ruin the rest of the valle}^ of the Black- 
stone, to drive out its inhabitants, and destroy its industries, or else 
it must provide in some way for taking care of its sewage. You can¬ 
not by any process reason away the proposition that a city of sixty 
thousand people, constantly increasing as we believe and hope it will 
increase, cannot go on discharging its enormous mass of filth, } r ear 
after 3 'ear, into this little river without finally polluting it to such an 
extent that not only its water cannot be used for any purpose what¬ 
ever, but that its banks must become uninhabitable. 

Mr. Chairman, I have referred to the report of the State Board 
of Health, not because I consider that it is necessary that the peti¬ 
tioners here should show the Committee or the city of Worcester 
how and in what wa}^ it can remedy this evil, but because I know, 
that, in view of the friendly relations of my clients to their good 
neighbors and friends in the city of Worcester, they ought not to 
complain of what the city has done under an Act of the Legislature, 
unless they can show that the injury might have been prevented or 
may now be stopped. 

Before I close, however, and come to the specific legislation which 
we ask the Committee to recommend, I wish to sa} T a few words on * 
the question of the legal liability of the city’ of Worcester. I do it 
because I think there has been considerable misapprehension in the 
public mind on that subject. I admit the possibility of a difference 
of opinion upon questions of this sort. I may be mistaken ; but I 
desire to present my own view, and then the reasons wh}', notwith¬ 
standing that opinion, I still ask for legislation. 

The general principle was stated by Mayor Verry, — who was not 
only a good mayor, but is a good lawyer; and my friends here will 
agree to it. It is, that one shall not use his own so as to injure the 
rights of bis neighbor. That principle has been applied time out of 
mind to the use of water in a running stream. Under it our courts 
have held that the owner of a mill privilege must return the water to 
the stream, subject only “to those slight and substantially immate¬ 
rial obstructions and retardations which necessarily result from exer¬ 
cising the right of a mill privilege above ” (7 Gray, 348). 

So, again, the court has held that one may not pollute a running 
stream. Bepeatedly injunctions have been applied for, and obtained, 
by an owner or dweller upon a stream, against one who fouled the 
water above him. The court has always held, that while a certain 


16 


inappreciable amount of injury may be caused to a running stream, 
which the court will not take account of, yet, that wherever that 
injury is of such a grave character as to be excessive, as to involve 
an unreasonable use of the water, the court will restrain it, or the 
person offending will be liable for damages. 

Now, apply that principle to the case of the city of Worcester. I 
take it that there is no question but that, prior to the Act of 1867, 
any individuals who discharged their sewage into the Blackstone 
River, whether from the city of Worcester or from an} 7 town above 
or below that city, would be liable in damages to any person who 
could prove that he was thereby injured. When the Act of 1867 was 
passed, however, which authorized the city of Worcester to take that 
brook for sewage purposes, a new class of liabilities arose. In 
that Act was a provision that a person injured by the taking of the 
brook, or by the taking of land, or by any other proceeding under 
the Act, was entitled to file his petition and to recover his dam¬ 
ages. And the courts have decided, in reference to that portion of 
the Act, that so far as the taking of the brook for sewage purposes 
involved, as a natural and necessary consequence, an injury to an 
individual or his property, his remedy was to be sought through a 
petition under that Act. That was decided, as my learned friends 
here know very well, first in the case of Merrijield v. Worcester, 110 
Mass., p. 216. But I desire to call the attention of the Committee 
to the language of the Supreme Court in making that decision. It 
is an important case, and will be referred to, very likely, as much 
upon the other side as upon this. It was a suit brought by the 
owner of a lot of land on both sides of Mill Brook in Worcester, who 
alleged that he had a right to have the water of the brook flow pure 
and uncorrupted, and that the defendant, that is, the city of Worces¬ 
ter, had deposited in said Mill Brook and the waters thereof, at 
points in the channel, above and higher than his works, great quan¬ 
tities of filth, dirt, gravel, etc. In other words, he alleged that the 
city of Worcester had turned its sewage into Mill Brook. He brought 
an action against the city to recover damages; and the court, in its 
decision, said, that “ so far as he has suffered damage from any proper 
exercise of the power and rights conferred” by the Act of 1867, 
authorizing the taking of Mill Brook as a sewer, he had no right of 
action ; his only right was to petition for damages under the statute. 
But, at the conclusion of its opinion, the court says, “Whether the 
damage which the plaintiff has suffered is attributable in any degree 
to the improper construction or unreasonable use of .the sewers, or to 
the negligence or other fault of the defendant in the care and manage¬ 
ment of them, is a question which does not appear by the record to 
have been tried.” In other words, the court in that opinion asserted 


IT 


the principle, which is referred to in other cases, that, although the 
right to damages of the person injured by the taking of Mill Brook 
as a sewer, so far as such injury is the natural and necessaty conse¬ 
quence of that taking, is limited to a petition under the Act, yet, if 
the city, by the improper construction or unreasonable use of the 
sewers, was negligent, there would be a liability which could be 
enforced by a suit at law. I refer also to the case of the Washburn 
& Moen Manufacturing Company v. The City of Worcester , in the 
116th volume of Massachusetts Reports, p. 458. That was a suit in 
equity brought by the Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Company 
to restrain the city of Worcester from causing a nuisance upon its 
premises by reason of the discharge of its sewage into Mill Brook. 
The court refers again to the principle I have stated, as laid down 
in the case of Merrifield v. The City of Worcester , that the liability of 
the city 7 for damages occasioned as the natural and necessary conse¬ 
quence of the taking of the brook as a sewer, could be recovered only 
by way of petition ; and then it goes on to say, that “ the Bill does 
not allege airy negligence of the city, either in the manner in which 
the sewage was discharged from the mouth of the sewer, or in omitting 
to have proper precautions to purify it.” Here, again, is the assertion 
of the principle, by implication, that, if the city of Worcester omits 
to.take proper precautions to purify the sewage discharged into Mill 
Brook, it is liable to an action at law for damages; it is liable to 
restraint in a suit in equity ; and, in case the nuisance which it occa¬ 
sions is a public nuisance, it is liable to indictment for maintaining 
the nuisance. 

Still further, as illustrating this principle, I wish to call attention 
to the base of Badger v. the City of Boston , which w r ill be found in 
the 130th volume of Massachusetts Reports, p. 170. I would not 
ordinarily occup}’ the time of the Committee in citing legal authori¬ 
ties, but I think that in the course of this hearing it may be important 
to have these questions considered. This was a suit by Erastus B. 
Badger against the city of Boston, which arose in this way : In 1876 
the Legislature passed an Act authorizing the city of Boston to con¬ 
struct urinals in the public streets, and to take land for that purpose. 
The Act further provided, that an\ 7 person who was injured in his 
property, by reason of the construction of a urinal, might apply for 
an assessment of his damages in the same way as for land taken 
for highway purposes. Mr. Badger thereupon brought a petition for 
damages, in which he alleged that a urinal had been constructed near 
his place, and that it was a nuisance to him, and an injury to his 
property. At the trial he undertook to show that the urinal was 
offensive and a nuisance. The court, however, declined to hear the 
testimony, upon the ground, that, in a petition for the assessment of 


18 


damages under that Act, the fact that the urinal proved to be a 
nuisance was not a subject for consideration, nor for the allowance 
of damages. In effect, the principle is laid down that the Legislature 
is never to be presumed as authorizing a municipality or an individual 
to create a nuisance. It gives it specific powers ; it authorize^ it to 
take land; it authorizes it to do certain things ; and it says to indi¬ 
viduals who are injured, “So far as your injury is the natural and 
necessary consequence of what is done under that Act, you can come 
in and petition for a jury, in the way in which damages are assessed 
for the taking of land for kighwa 3 T s; but after that land has been 
taken, and that work has been constructed, if, as a consequence of 
the negligent way in which the work is constructed, or the negligent 
way in which the public work is carried on, the injury is occasioned, 
that is a new and independent claim, a new source of liability^, on 
which an action at law may be maintained, or a bill in equity to 
obtain an injunction ma} 7 be sustained.” Mr. Justice Endicott, who 
gives the opinion in that case, sa} T s, “ If this urinal, by reason of its 
management or use, becomes a public nuisance, the city ma} 7 be 
liable to indictment for thus maintaining it, or be subject to an action 
of tort b} T the person who suffers special damage thereby;” but then 
proceeds to sa} T , that in this petition the court could not consider it. 
To the same general propositions I cite the important cases of Haskell 
v. New Bedford , 108 Mass. 208; Brayton v. Fall River , 113 Mass. 
218 ; Boston Rolling Mills v. Cambridge , 117 Mass. 396. 

Now, if I make myself clear to the Committee, the application of 
the principles laid down in these cases, and in others which I have 
not referred to, is this: The Act of 1867 authorized the city 7 of 
Worcester to take Mill Brook for the purposes of sewage, to con¬ 
struct new channels, and to take land therefor; to alter the bounda¬ 
ries of the brook, and to do a great many things which are necessary 
to the use of that stream for sewerage purposes. So far as any indi¬ 
vidual was injured, as the natural and necessary consequence of the 
taking of Mill Brook as a sewer, he could recover damages on his 
petition the same as if the city had taken his land, or injured his prop¬ 
erty, in the construction of a highway, or in the alteration of the 
grade of a road. But if the city, having appropriated this brook for 
the purposes of a sewer, so constructed the sewer as that it caused 
injury to the people who had a right in that river, or so managed the 
discharge of its sewage as that it was not properly purified and freed 
from polluting substances, then from the time that that injury began, 
and so long as it continues, it is liable to suits for damages on the 
part of every individual who receives special injury in his person or 
his estate. It is liable to a suit in equity, on the application of 
persons who are specially affected by its wrongful acts to compel an 


19 


abatement thereof; and if, as we fear, this evil shall become of such 
magnitude as to constitute a public nuisance, the city is liable to 
indictment b} r the grand jury of the county. That I believe to be 
the law affecting the city of Worcester. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, m3 7 friends on the other side may sa} r , — m3 7 
friend, Mr. Goulding, did sa3^ it last 3 7 ear, — “If you have a claim 
for damages in suits at law, why not bring 3’our suits at law? Why 
not bring 3’our Bill in Equit3 T ? Why not get an indictment? Why 
not involve the city of Worcester in a great litigation?” That may 
be the result, Mr. Chairman. The people on the Blackstone River 
below the city of Worcester must protect their rights ; but the3’ have 
not thought it the part of good neighbors, in view of the fact that the 
evil has come gradual^, and, I am bound to concede, almost imper¬ 
ceptibly, to the apprehension of eveiybody' on that stream, at once to 
go to law about it. Thej* have had an inclination, and have shown 
it year after 3'ear, to avoid litigation ; and the3 r will await the decision 
of this Legislature, after it shall have been put in possession of all 
the facts, as to whether or not a proper modification shall be made 
of the Act of 1867. 

I cannot state the views of the people who ask for legislation here 
better than b3 T adopting the language which our distinguished senator, 
Mr. Hoar, addressed to his fellow-townsmen of Worcester on the eve 
of the last election, and after this question of a remed3 7 for the pollu¬ 
tion caused b3 7 the sewage of the cit3 r of Worcester had become a 
prominent issue in that election. 

“ Mr. Hoar said that he did not desire that Worcester should send represent¬ 
atives or a senator to the Legislature, to get her off, as if she had done or were 
doing some wrong, for which she was to be indicted as for a nuisance. Worces¬ 
ter cannot afford to put forth her strength to do a wrong to her neighbors and 
friends, the towns below her in the Blackstone Valley. Our representatives 
and senator ought in this matter to represent the justice of the whole State, 
and not a mere local interest. They should do just what they ought to do if 
they represented Berkshire or Essex, or one of the towns interested. While 
he was not one of the largest taxpayers, he was so situated that the burden 
of taxes pressed upon him most heavily; but he would rather Worcester should 
pay one million dollars than do a wrong to one of these towns. It is a great 
and serious thing to poison the air, to pollute the streams, or destroy the health 
of the homes of a town like Millbury or Sutton or Northbridge or Uxbridge 
or Blackstone. Worcester must call to her aid all the resources of science, all 
the experience of other cities and countries, all the ingenuity of mechanic art, 
to avoid such a result, whatever may be the cost. For one, he desired his 
representatives in the Legislature to meet the question in this spirit.” 

Nothing can be said better, stronger, clearer, nobler, than that 
statement from Mr. Hoar. He recognizes the injury that has been 
done, and is being done. He recognizes that it will involve a great 


20 


cost to remove it. He recognizes that the natural, selfish instinct of 
most people will be to sa} T , “ Well, so long as we get rid of our sew¬ 
age, we won’t trouble ourselves until we are compelled to do it, in 
regard to its effect upon other people ; ” and then he sa}'s, whatever 
may be the cost, the city of Worcester must summon to its aid all the 
resources of science and all experience to devise and adopt some plan 
for the removal of this nuisance. Mr. Chairman, while there are 
such men in Worcester, and such a spirit shown there, it would cer¬ 
tainly be in the highest degree unfair and unneighborty for the people 
injured by this evil to take an}” legal action ; and that is why they 
have forborne to do it. 

I will also call attention to an editorial from “ The Worcester 
Gazette” upon the same subject. It appeared Tuesday evening, 
Nov. 8 , 1881 . 

“Senator Hoar takes a just view of the sewage controversy, and one not 
essentially different from that already advanced by us. The ancient fashion, 
when a difference of opinion arose between cities or individuals, was to break 
heads with cudgels, or send out opposing armies to destroy each other. The 
progress of civilization has modified these customs. Hard words, and w'rits, 
Injunctions, and attachments are the weapons most in use at the present day; 
out human nature is still belligerent, and men fight more readily than they com¬ 
promise. The peaceful settlement of the Alabama Claims by arbitration was 
looked upon in the light almost of a new invention for the prevention of wars,— 
at least the beginning of a new era of enlightenment in the world’s history. We 
do not at present advise either arbitration or compromise in the issue between 
this city and the towns in the valley below; but if the citizens of Worcester 
will approach the subject in a spirit somewhat broader and more liberal than 
heretofore, and will recognize, that, while they have their rights and necessities, 
they have not after all been behaving in a very neighborly manner, we think a 
great deal of money, useless wear and tear of mind, and waste of energy can 
be saved. We still hope that some practical and profitable way of utilizing the 
sewage may be discovered. No system could well be more wantonly wasteful 
and expensive than that now in common use here and in the cities of the 
world. This is Yankee land, and in the caking out of patents there is no end. 
A portion of all this ingenuity might very well be turned toward this question, 
and it would be a sagacious step on the part of the city government to offer a 
handsome reward for such a discovery.” 

I had the honor of saying to this Committee, a year ago, Mr. 
Chairman, that I believed that the inventive ability of our engineers 
and scientific men would discover a practical method, adapted to our 
climate and our situation, of freeing sewage from improper matters, 
precisely the same as it has made useful and valuable improvements 
in all other directions. The fact is, that onl}' within the last few 
years has the attention of our people been directed to sanitary ques¬ 
tions. Now they have become, as this Committee are specially aware, 
of the greatest importance. Almost all the cities have their water- 


21 


supply; most of them have systems of sewerage: but, in securing 
those great luxuries which are only the necessities of modern civiliza¬ 
tion, they have not given sufficient attention to the effect which the 
use of these conveniences ma} r have upon their neighbors, and also, 
I ma} r say, to the waste which they themselves are making of what 
the} T have. 

The object of this hearing is to ask this Committee to require the 
city of Worcester to take some steps in the matter. It has been, up 
to this time, a matter of investigation, a matter of consideration. 
Now we ask the Committee to require the city of Worcester to take 
some action. I have prepared a Bill, which is intended to be as fair 
and reasonable as it is possible for a Bill to be framed, upon the 
basis of the obligation of the city of Worcester to take care of its 
sewerage. It does not require that the city shall adopt the specific 
plan recommended either b}^ the State Board of Health or by Col. 
Waring. It does not give to the State Board of Health, even, the 
power to determine what the city shall do. It does not require the 
city to do any thing at present but investigate : but it does require 
it within four months to adopt some S} T stem for abating the nuisance 
it causes; and it provides, that, after the expiration of four months, 
the sewage shall not be discharged into Blackstone River, until it 
has been properly purified. 

I may say that the Bill is framed largelj r upon the Act reported by 
this Committee, and passed b}^ the Legislature of last year, requiring 
the city of Boston to purify the water flowing through the sewer into 
lower Mystic Pond. That Bill not only received the approval of 
this Committee and of the Legislature, but it has been sustained by 
the Supreme Court in a suit in equity brought to compel the city of 
Boston to carry out its provisions. The question of the constitution¬ 
ality of the Act was raised in the hearing before a single justice, who 
held that the Act was constitutional. From this decision the city 
appealed ; but, before the case was heard by the full court, the city 
consented that a decree might be entered for the petitioners, and for a 
perpetual injunction, thereby assenting to the validity of the Act. I 
may say, however, that that Act was open to a good many objections 
which would not apply to this one ; because, in that case, as the 
Committee will remember, the sewer which the city of Boston was 
required to purify was merely an artificial sewer, and not an ancient 
water-course. 

The further provisions of the Act which I submit to this Committee 
are the ordinary ones, allowing the city to take land and construct 
works, and authorizing proper appropriations for that purpose. Then, 
there is at the end a provision similar to the section in the Act of last 
year in reference to Mystic River, by which the selectmen of any of 


22 


the towns upon the Blackstone River are permitted to apply to the 
Supreme Court sitting in equity for an injunction, or tor other 
appropriate action in case of a violation of the Act. 

Let me restate our case before this Committee. The city of 
Worcester is polluting, in an unexampled wa}’, the water of this river, 
creating a great nuisance there. We do not sa } 7 to the cify, “Lou 
must stop that nuisance at once.” We appreciate the difficulty of 
stopping it at once. We simpfy sa} 7 , “ Take, in addition to all the 
years that you have had to give to this subject, four months more to 
consider it. Employ such experts as you please, devise any scheme, 
— the least expensive that will answer the purpose is, of course, the 
most desirable for you, and it is just as satisfactory for us, — but, 
at the end of the time named, do something definite to prevent the 
continuance of this nuisance.” After the city has determined what 
it will do, we ask only the further provision, that, if the selectmen of 
any of the towns affected can satisfy the Supreme Court that the city 
has not done enough, the court may, b } 7 injunction or some other 
process, require something further to be done. 

I may add, that we are prepared with evidence upon the existence 
and extent of the nuisance. We are prepared to show by the testi¬ 
mony of those who live upon the river below the city of Worcester, 
that this evil is of very great magnitude ; that it is affecting very 
seriously the value of property, and, what is more important, the 
safety of life. We are also prepared, by the presence of Dr. Wal¬ 
cott, to give to the Committee the results, in perhaps a more satis¬ 
factory shape than even the printed report of the investigations 
made by the State Board of Health. We shall be prepared at another 
meeting, in case the Committee desire to go further in the matter, 
to present Dr. Folsom, and also Col. Waring, in order to assist the 
minds of the Committee, as far as it is in our power, in determining 
the important practical question whether the city of Worcester can 
do any thing. We are willing to go as far as the Committee may 
desire, and w r e propose to submit ourselves very largely to their 
direction as to the order of the hearing; but of course we shall be 
influenced very much b } 7 the position which our friends from Worces¬ 
ter may take. On the one hand, we have no desire to burden the 
Committee with long hearings upon questions of fact. On the other 
hand, we do not desire the matter to be disposed of without a realiz¬ 
ing sense, on the part of every gentleman on this Committee, of the 
seriousness and importance of the question. 

Mr. Goulding. We came here without knowing what the propo¬ 
sition of the other side was, and without knowing w r hat course they 
would pursue in this hearing. When they have finished their case, 
we shall be ready to present ours ; and we are indifferent, of course, 


28 


as to what method is pursued here, except that we desire as short a 
hearing as possible. I desire to say that I shall not, at any stage 
of this hearing, consume any considerable time in any opening state¬ 
ment. I shall controvert most of the positions of law, and many of 
the positions of fact, w T hich the counsel takes upon the other side, 
from the same evidence which he has himself adduced. I shall take 
occasion carefully to analyze these reports of the State Board of 
Heath, as far as they bear upon this question ; and I should like to 
have the privilege of doing that in the closing argument, even if it 
should take more time, rather than to make two arguments upon the 
matter. 

The Chairman. Is there any likelihood that the city of Worcester 
will accept this or any similar Bill? 

Mr. Goulding. Oh, no, sir ! not at all. We shall show, we think, 
that there is no occasion for any thing of the sort. 

The Chairman. How far does the city of Worcester admit the 
fact of a nuisance here ? 

Mr. Goulding. We deny that there is any nuisance. We shall 
offer to show, froln evidence that has already been put in, that there 
is no nuisance, as a necessary implication. Of course, it depends 
upon what you mean by nuisance ; but we speak in the legal sense of 
a nuisance. 

Mr. Morse. I understand, then, that we are to proceed in the 
ordinary wa} 7 , with the introduction of evidence ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 


24 


EVIDENCE FOR THE PETITIONERS. 

TESTIMONY OF NATHAN H. GREENWOOD. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)— You are one of the selectmen of Mill- 
bury? A. — lam. 

Q. — State where } r ou live in Millbmy. A. —About one mile 
north of the centre of the town, near Burling Mills, so called. 

Q .—How near the Blackstone River? A. — Within five or six 
rods. 

Q .—How long have 3*011 resided there? A. —About thirty-nine 
years, with the exception of six years. 

Q. — State what 3011 remember of the condition of Blackstone 
River fifteen years ago, as compared with its present condition. 
A. — It was comparatively pure. The waters were a great deal 
clearer. For instance, there is a bridge crossing it near m} r house ; 
there is quite a deep place on one side, where the water is twelve or 
fifteen feet deep, perhaps more ; then, in a bright, sunn3 T day in the 
summer, 3*011 could see the bottom quite distinctly. I have seen it 
many times as a boy. Now, on the other side, where the water is 
not more than a foot deep, 3*011 cannot see the bottom in the brightest 
da} r in summer. 

Q. — What have 3*011 noticed as to smell? A. —There is, in the 
summer more particular^, quite an offensive smell. Of course, at 
this time of 3 T ear the smell is not so bad ; but in the summer-time it 
is very offensive. 

Q. — How far from the river have 3*011 noticed that smell? A. — 
Well, I can’t say exactly how far, but quite a considerable distance ; 
quite a number of rods I have noticed it. 

Q. — Will cattle drink of the stream at 3’our farm? A. —Well, 
very seldom, without the3 r are very thirst3 T . 

Q. — How wide is Blackstone River at 3*our place of residence ? 
A. — Well, right directty opposite m3* house, there is quite a projec¬ 
tion runs out in coves ; but a short distance above there, I should 
sa3 r , or below, I should think it wasn’t more than twent3 T -five feet in 
width ; that is, in the summer, with the natural flow of the water. 

Q. —About how deep at that place? A. — It is quite shallow all 
through there, except this hole that I speak of, just below the bridge, 
which is merely a place of three, four. 01 five rods. 

Q. —Do you use the stream for bathing now? A. —No, sir, we 
do not. 

Q. — Did 3 T ou in former years? A. — It was customary, when I 
was a boy, until within a dozen or fifteen years, perhaps ten years, 
for the boys to use it. 


25 


Q. (By the Chairman.) —’You mean they do not use it as a 
bathing-place on account of the impurities? A. —Yes, sir: they 
would get more dirt on than they would get off by bathing there 
now. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Can 3*011 state what action was taken b} r 
the town of Millbury in regard to this matter? 

Mr. Goulding. I suppose the action of the town of Millbury 
would be shown bj r its records, if you mean Azotes. 

Q' — In general, whether or not the town of Millbury has taken 
any action? A. — It has taken the action of appointing a committee 
to endea\ T or to find some remedy, or have it remedied. 

Q .—Now, as to the health of your family the last few years? 
A .—Well, the older members of it, my mother and aunt, have been 
unwell. Last fall my aunt was ver} 7- sick. The physician we had 
said it was malarial disease, — malarial fever. That it was caused 
b}^ the ri\ T er, of course I cannot sa3 T . 

Q. — Did 3*011 attribute this ill health in your famity to pollution of 
the river? A. —I did. 

Q. (B3 t Mr. Morse.) — Did the physician? A. — I don’t know as 
he said so to me. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Your residence is exactly where, sir? 
A. — It is near the Burling Mills, just across the river. 

Q. — On what road or street? A. — It is on the old road leading 
from Worcester to Mill buiy. 

Q. — Then it is on the west side of the Blackstone River? A. — 
The west side of the Blackstone River. 

Q. — You go over the new Millbuiy road, crossing the river north 
of Burling Mills, to get to your place? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—You are about five or six rods from the Blackstone River? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —At that point, has the Blackstone River two channels, or one? 
Does the water run in two channels, or in one? A. — Except at high 
water, it runs in one channel; at high Avater it runs over and through 
another channel. 

Q. — The channel it runs in is the channel that leads it to the Bur¬ 
ling Mills? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —Is there not a channel that takes the bulk of the water of the 
river to Burling Mills? A. —There is. 

Q. — Is that the natural channel of the Blackstone River? A. — 
It is not: it is the old canal. 

Q. — Do 3 T ou live opposite to that channel? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — You liAe above it? A. —I live opposite to it, on the west 
side, and further across the river from there. 


26 


Q. — And opposite where yon live, there is this artificial channel, 
which takes the water of the river to Barling Mills? A .—Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — Is that the old Blackstone canal ? A. — It is a large portion 
of it. 

Q. — Now, does not, except in times of freshets, all, or nearly all, 
the water that runs down the river, go through that channel? A .— 
When the mill is running, the larger part of it, in dry weather, goes 
that way in the daytime ; in the nights it does not. 

Q. — There is a roll-way on the west side of the channel, above 
the mill, to lead off the water when it is not wanted for the mill? 
A. —There is. 

Q. — Is the water turned into that channel at the north end of it? 
A. — All of it, when the water doesn’t run over their dam. They 
have a dam there. When the water does not run over it, all, except 
•what leaks through, goes down that channel. 

Q. —Now, when you speak of the channel of the river near your 
place, do you mean this natural channel of the river, which runs par¬ 
allel with this canal? A. —I do. 

Q. — No considerable part of the water goes there, except at times 
of high water? A. —It goes there when the Burling Mill isn’t run¬ 
ning. 

Q. —The mill is generally running, is it not? A. —In the dajr- 
time: it is not in the habit of running nights. 

Q. — You are not out there to see it much, nights? A. — I can 
smell it, though, if I can’t see it. It is not necessary to see the 
Blackstone River to know where it is. 

Q . — Perhaps, Mr. Witness, } r ou understood me as asking whether 
you could smell it or not. I asked you whether you were out there 
nights to see it. A. — I answered it: I said I was not. 

Q. — Now, what does your family consist of, Mr. Greenwood? 

» 

A. —I have a wife and three children. 

Q. —Your mother, you say, lives with you? A. — My mother 
lives with me. 

Q. —Have you always lived in the same house? A. — Always, 
with the exception of six or seven }’ears that I was away. 

Q. — Is your own health pretty good ? A. — Comfortable. 

Q. — What is your business ? A. — I am a farmer at present. 

Q. — How old are you ? A. — Thirty-nine years. 

Q. — Ever been sick at all? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Well, when? A. — I have not been sick abed for some time, 
with the exception of once, a year ago last fall. 

Q. — What were you sick with then? A. —I don’t know. 

Q< — Any idea what it was? A .—Neuralgia pain, I guess: I 


27 


believe the doctor called it that. That was not at home : I was away 
from home at the time. 

Q . — Where were you? A. — I was in Northborough. 

Q. — An}’ rivers down there? A. —I don’t attribute that to the 
sewer, Mr. Goulding, if you please. I don’t want you to understand 
that I attribute that to the sewer. # 

Q. — When were you sick at any other time besides that? A. —- 
I haven’t said that I was sick at all. 

Q. — I haven’t said you did; but you said you had been sick in 
your life. Now, I ask you if you have ever been sick, except that 
time when you were at Northborough ? A. — Why, yes. 

Q. — When? A. — I can’t remember the dates. 

Q. —What diseases have you had? A. —Nothing particular, as 
I know of. 

Q. — Have you ever had any malaria? A. — I never have had 
any malaria : no, sir. 

Q. — How long have you been married? A. — Six years. 

Q. —Wife in good health? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How old are your children? A. — One is five years, and the 
youngest one is a year and a half. 

Q. —Children in pretty good health? A. —Y'es, sir. 

Q. — How old a lady is your mother? A. — Seventy-six. 

Q. — When was it you said she was sick? A. — She hasn’t been 
well for a great many years. 

Q. —What has been the matter with her? A. —I don’t know. 

Q .—You don’t know ? A. — No. 

Q. —Have you any idea what it is? A. —It is a sort of debility. 
No, I don’t know what it is: I don’t know what to call it. 

Q. —A kind of debility? A. —l r es. 

Q. —Accustomed to have a doctor? A. — Not very often ; some¬ 
times. 

Q. — Ever asked the doctor what was the reason of your mother’s 
debility? A. —I don’t know that I ever did. 

Q .—Have you the slightest idea what the cause of your mother’s 
debility is? A. — She has been so ever since I can remember. 

Q, —Then, for thirty-nine years she has been in a debilitated con¬ 
dition ? A. — I don’t remember for thirty-nine years. 

Q. — Say thirty-five, or thirty-three, or thirty-four years? A .— 
Thirty years. 

Q. — Has she lived there all the time ? A. — l r es, sir. 

Q. — And been in about the same condition of debility all that 
time? A. — Well, with the exception of growing more so. 

Q. — The infirmities of age affect her somewhat? A. — I presume 

so. 


28 


Q. —When was it she was sick? Last fall, did 3^011 say? A .—• 
No, sir. 

Q .—Hasn’t your mother been sick, except this general debility? 
A. — No, sir. I said my aunt had been sick. 

Q. —Your aunt was sick, then? A. — Yes, sir, she was. 

Q. — How old is your aunt? A. — She is about seventy. 

Q. How long has she lived there? A. — She has lived there all 
her life. 

Q .—Was she ever sick before this occasion, that you remember 
of? A. — I don’t remember any serious sickness that she had, 
except once before. 

Q. — When was that? A. — I can’t tell when it was. It was when 
I was away ; it must have been some eight or nine 3’ears ago, — eight 
3^ears, perhaps. 

Q. —You were not there? A. —I was not there at the time. 

Q. — Do you know what was the matter with her then? A. — I 
do not. 

Q. — Do 3'ou remember what season of the 3’ear it was? A. — It 
was in the summer. 

Q. —You don’t know what the matter was? never inquired? A. 
— I presume I did know; but I have forgotten what the trouble was. 

Q. — How long was she sick? A. — I can’t tell 3-011 now exactty. 

Q. — With the exception of those instances that 3-ou have related, 
3-011 know of no other sickness? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — How long was she sick this last time? A. — She isn’t over 
it 3'et; that is, she isn’t so well as she was before she was sick. The 
doctor called her dangerously sick for about a week. 

Q. — The doctor never told 3-011 what the cause of it was, and 3-011 
never inquired of him? A. —He said he didn’t know what the cause 
of it was, if I remember correct^-; he didn’t want to say ; he 
couldn’t sa3’ what the cause of it was, or didn’t want to sa3 r . 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Did the doctor come from Worcester? 
A . —No, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — Where did he come from? A. — From 
Millbury. 

Q. — He didn’t want to tell 3-011 what the matter was? A. —He 
didn’t tell me : I don’t know that I asked him. 

Q. (B3- the Chairman.) —Do you appear as representing the 
selectmen officially, or as a citizen ? A. — I appear at the request of 
the committee of the town. 

Q. — A committee chosen in town-meeting? A. — Yes, sir. 


29 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE D. CHASE. 

Q. (Ify Mr. Flagg.) —What is 3*our business, Mr. Chase? A. — 
I work in the sash and blind shop in Millbury. 

Q -—You live in Millbury, and are one of the selectmen? A .— 

Yes, sir. 

* 

Q •—Live near the river? A. — Perhaps a matter of fifteen or 
twenty rods from it. 

Q •—You work there near the river? A. — Within two or three 
rods. 

Q.—How long have 3*011 known the river? A. — Some twenty 
years or more. 

Q • — Will you state its condition, as you remember it, fifteen years 
ago, and as you know it to-day ? A .—Fifteen years ago the river 
was clear. It was used a good deal at that time for bathing; that 
is, amongst the boys, I amongst the rest of them. I remember it 
more particularly on that account. I used to be round the river a 
great deal; and the water was ver} r clear, more particularly at the 
upper dam, where we used to go in bathing, — at Mr. Morse’s shop. 
It was an excellent place for bathing ; had a nice bank, and the water 
was clear. We used to go in there very often. 

Q .—Was that the sash and blind shop where you now work? 
A. —That was the sash and blind shop where I work now. But no 
bathing has been done in the river for some time: it is not fit for the 
purpose. The river at the present time, or rather in the summer 
season, is very offensive ; much more so within a 3*ear, or a year and 
a half, than ever before. 

Q. — Where do 3*011 notice that ? A. — I notice that more partic¬ 
ularly near the place of David Harrington than anywhere else, 
although I notice it at the shop. 

Q. — Where is David Harrington’s place situated on the river? 
A. — It is perhaps an eighth of a mile north-west, or north, of. the 
sash and blind shop. 

Q. — It is an eighth of a mile from the river? A. —Oh, no, sir! 
It is right on the river. The buildings are within thirty feet. 

Q. — Do you notice this smell at your house? A .—I do some¬ 
times during the summer season : yes, sir. 

Q. — Now, 3 r ou speak of its offensiveness. What do you mean b3 r 
offensiveness? What do 3 r ou notice? A. —A very strong smell. I 
can’t define it in any other way. It is very offensive, I know. I 
notice it more particularly at the shop, because, in falling over the 
dam, of course it stirs it up. 

Q. —The dam at the sash and blind shop? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do you take any precautions to keep this offensive odor from 
3*011 while at work? A. —Yes, sir: we shut the windows. 


30 


Q. — Is that customary among the workmen there at the shop ? 
A. — It has been done a great many times. 

Q. — Has there been an increase in this bad condition of things 
during the last few 3*ears? A. — Yes, sir, very marked. 

Q. — Do you notice it is growing worse from year to 3*ear? A. —• 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — At 3 r our house do 3*011 notice these odors? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — What has been the effect upon 3 T our famity? A. — It has 
not been good. I have not been in good health for the last two or 
three 3*ears. The doctor didn’t seem to know what it was at first, 
but he has finally laid it to that; and, in fact, nyy bo3* has been sick ; 
and that is the onl3 r way that I could account for it. 

Q. — AYas 3'our attention called last summer to some dead fish in 
the stream? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Will 3’ou tell what 3*011 saw? A. — Notice came to me one 
Sunda3 T afternoon — I forget the date now — that the river had the 
appearance of cotton balls, as the man expressed it, below the dam 
at Mr. Morse’s shop. He said the authorities had got to do some¬ 
thing about it, or ought to do something about it; and I went up and 
saw Mr. Greenwood, and, with Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Whitne3*, I 
went out to the river, and we found it in a veiy bad shape. The 
river there, for an eighth of a mile, perhaps, was covered with fish ; 
and we hunted round for some men and a boat to take them out. 
We got one boat out with two men, and went after some more ; and, 
b3* the time we got back with the second lot, the first boat-load had 
given up. I asked them what the trouble was, and they said they 
couldn’t go that. We finally got another boat out; the3 T worked 
a while, and they gave up ; and finally Mr. Greenwood ran across a 
couple of men, and they went out and finished the job. Since then, 
in settling with the parties, we have had to pa3 T quite a considerable 
sum for cleaning the river, the3* claiming that the3 r had received a 
great deal of injury by taking the fish out; that they had been sick, 
and had lost a good deal of time. The doctor said, in the case of 
one man in particular, that, if he had not had an excellent constitu¬ 
tion, it would have hurt him permanently: he has been sick, laid up, 
some time since then. * 

Q. — What was the condition of the river at that time as to depth 
of water? A. — Well, at that time, if I remember right, I think it 
was low. 

Q. — What time of year was it? A. — It was in summer : I can’t 
sa3 r now just what time. 

Q. — Those fish appeared just below the dam of the sash and blind 
factoiy? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How far down below? A. — It was down below the Provi¬ 
dence Railroad bridge: the river there is ver3 T crooked. 


31 


Q- — Was it, in fact, between the two dams? A. —Yes, sir, it 
was between the two dams. 

Q >—Those fish that the men took out, I don’t understand were 
decayed fish? A. — Some of them were; that is, they were dead 

fish. 

Q • —How long had they been dead? A. —The } 7 made their first 
appearance that day, that morning, or that afternoon: that was the 
first that we had heard of it. 

Q ♦ — How large a space did those dead fish cover? A. — I should 
think perhaps we worked over some six hundred feet; that is, we 
cleaned the river. 

Q • — In this distance of six hundred feet, how many baskets full 
did they take out? A. —There were some fifteen or twenty bushels : 
I can’t say just how many. There was over fifteen and under twenty. 

Q • — What kind of fish were they? A. — Suckers. 

Q .—What other kind of fish are there in the river? A. — Most 
all pouts ; that is, there have been pouts, pickerel, perch, and the 
other common fish found in country streams : but for the last few 
years I see very few other fish than pouts and suckers ; that is, I have 
not noticed any. 

Q. — What is the condition of the pond at the sash and blind 
factory, as to its appearance now, compared with what it was fifteen 
years ago? A. — It is very different. Fifteen years ago there was 
quite a large pond ; at the present time it is filled up very much. At 
one point I notice, particularly above the cemetery, the water has 
changed to land, and is changing very fast: it is filling up very fast 
indeed. The pond has changed in size a great deal within the last 
four or five years. 

• Q. —What sort of growth appears in the pond? A. —It is a kind 
of weed : I don’t know what it is, — coarse water-grass and weeds. 

Q .—Are there any ice-houses by the pond? There were, some 
years ago, but they have been abandoned. 

Q .—Would you buy ice for your family taken from that pond? 
A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Formerly the village was supplied with ice from that pond, 
was it not? A. —Yes, sir: there were two ice-houses within gun¬ 
shot that used to supply the town, but they have been abandoned. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Mr. Chase, how long have you worked 
in that sash-factory? A. —I have worked there now nine years, or 
it will be nine years next month, continuously. Before that, I worked 
there. 

Q. — It was burned down within a few months, wasn’t it? A. — 
Yes, sir. 


32 


Q. —And has been rebuilt since? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — That sash-factory is about how far below Quinsigamond Vil¬ 
lage? A. — I should think perhaps a matter of three and a half 
miles, or four miles, — somewhere there. 

Q. — What do you do in the factory? A. — Work on window- 
frames. 

Q .—Which story do you work in? A. — Since the fire, I have 
worked in the first story ; before that, I worked in the second story. 

Q. — About how many have been employed there since you worked 
there? A. —The average number of men is about fifty, — from fifty 
to fifty-five. 

Q. —Do you keep up the same number throughout the year? A. 
— About the same : they come and go some. 

Q. — I noticed you said, in answer to a question whether it was 
the custom to shut the windows, that it had been done a great many 
times. Do you mean to say it is the custom to keep the windows 
shut in summer at that factory? A. — It was the custom last sum¬ 
mer. We didn’t keep them shut all the time, but we did a great deal 
of the time. 

Q. — A great deal of the time it was the custom last summer, — 
was it prior to last summer? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Was the water unusually low last summer? A. — Some¬ 
times in the summer it was low. I don’t know as it was much lower 
than it has been. 

Q. — Were considerable areas of that pond exposed during the 
summer? A. — Not so much as what has been, — not any more. 

Q. — Not any more than has been? A. — No, sir. 

Q . — But were there not considerable areas exposed during the 
summer? A. —No, sir. 

Q .—Pond full all the time? A. — The usual depth of water 
there. 

Q. — Well, this thing you noticed last summer? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How large is that pond? A. — I cannot say : I should think 
it was somewhere about thirty acres, — somewhere along there. 

Q. — Is the health of the hands at that mill as good as at other 
places generally? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —What facts have you noticed about that? A. — I have 
noticed that the hands have been complaining, and they all cuss the 
river. 

Q. — Have they cussed the river always, ever since you have been 
there? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — When did they begin to cuss it? A. —They commenced 
cussing it a year or two ago, but more so last summer. 

Q. — Their cursing was more terrible last summer than before? 
A. — Yes, sir. 


33 


Q- —Although they cursed, thej r didn’t leave the mill, they kept 
at work there? A .—It has been a matter of consideration with a 
great many whether they should not leave. 

Q !• —I didn’t ask you about their consideration, but whether they 
did actually leave. A. — Some, I think, have left. 

Q. —Who has left? A. — I can’t remember who has left: some 
of them have. 

Q. — Do }X)u know anybody who has left on account of the scent 
there, —that you can testif} 7 left because the smell was bad? A . — 
I can’t think of any one now who left for that special reason. 

Q. — Well, it is in summer, I suppose, that it is the worst? A. — 
Yes, sir: it is natural that it should be. 

Q . — You have lived there a long time, j t ou say, in that vicinity, 
and known the river? A. — I have known the river for twenty 3 7 ears. 

Q .—How old are 3 r ou? A .—Thirty 3 T ears. I have known the 
river thirt3 T 3'ears. I have lived near to it, now, nearly twent3 T 3 T ears, 
— fifteen 3 r ears or so. 

Q. (B3 t the Chairman.) —Do 3^011 mean the Committee to under¬ 
stand that any who did leave, left on account of the smell? A .— 
No, sir: I won’t sa3 T that the3 T left on account of the smell. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — You don’t know of an3*? A. — No, sir, 
not now. 

Q. — Has this cursing increased since the last hearing before the 
Legislature? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —The3 r cursed about as much before? A. — I should think so. 

Q. — Mr. Morse is your employer, and he is one of the leading 
gentlemen who are making this agitation? A. —Mr. Morse is on 
the committee : 3-es, sir. 

Q. — Isn’t he one of the leading gentlemen who are agitating this 
subject? A. — He is one of the men; but he is not alone, by any 
means. 

Q. — He is one of the leading men? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—You spoke about a miraculous draught of dead fish there: 
when was that exactly? A. — I could not tell you, sir, exactly. 

Q. — No ; but as near as you can tell, when was it? A. — I cannot 
tell what month it was in : it was in the summer, some time, I know. 

Q. — Last summer? A. — Last summer. 

Q. —Your attention was called to the fact that a large number of 
fish were floating in the water, below C. D. Morse’s mill, as I under¬ 
stand it? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —And covered a large area? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How many of you went to work getting them out? A .—I 
think there were six or eight different men on the river at different 
times. 


34 


Q. — How long a period did this work cover of getting them out? 
A. —It covered a good share of a Sunday afternoon. 

Q. —What did you do with the fish? A. —Buried them. 

Q .—Did you ever see any such phenomenon as that before? A. 

9 

— No, sir. 

Q. — Have you since ? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Have you ever heard any cause for it mentioned by anybody? 
A. —No, sir. I don’t know the reason for it; never heard of any. 

Q. — Never heard that poison was put into the river for the pur¬ 
pose of killing the fish, — never heard a rumor of that kind ? A. — I 
have heard a rumor of that kind. 

Q,. — What was the rumor you heard? A. — Well, that they were 
poisoned : that is all I know about it. 

Q. — That is as definite as an}’ thing you have heard about it? A. 

— Yes, sir. 

Q .—You have heard that the fishes were poisoned by somebody? 
A. —By somebody, yes, sir. 

Q. —You don’t know whether it is true or not? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —But you do know that you never saw such a thing before, and 
never have seen it since? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —There are a great many suckers and eels in the river now, are 
there not? A. — I don’t know: I haven’t had any occasion to find 
out. 

Q. — Any musquash or mink there? A. — No, sir. Years ago 
musk-rats used to build there a great deal. In and around the ring- 
meadow about Mr. Morse’s pond, where their houses used to be 
counted by the hundred, I was going to say, now you cannot count 
' a dozen. 

Q. — Can you count ten or eleven ? A. — I don’t think you can. 

Q . —There are some there? A. —There may be a few there. 

Q. — You will admit a few rats? A. —Well, a few. 

Q • — Any mink ? A. — No, sir. You may see one once in a while, 
but not many. 

Q. — Have you seen any of late there? A. — Mr. Greenwood, I 
believe, caught one not a great while ago. 

Q.— Now, you spoke of Mr. Harrington’s house; and that, you 
say, is very near the pond of Mr. Morse? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q •—How old a man is Mr. Harrington? A. — He is a man, I 
should think, seventy-five years old. 

Q- — He has pretty good health? A. — Not first class; you 
couldn’t expect it. 

Q. —Good as men average at that age? A. —Yes, sir : I should 
think so. 

Q. —Is he a brother of Mr. Stephen Harrington of Worcester, do 
you know ? A. — I can’t say. 


85 


Q • — You say he has always lived there? A. —No, sir, I don’t 
think he has. He has lived there as long as I can remember. 

Q- — You can remember twenty-five years back, perhaps? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q • —Do you know of any death in his family? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q •—Who has died? A .—An old lady — I don’t know how she 
was related to him — died this last winter. 

Q• — At how earl}' an age was she cut off ? A. — She was along 
in the latter part of life. I can’t sa}' how old she was : somewhere 
about eighty years old, I should think. 

Q • — Any other deaths in his family? A. —Not that I can state. 
I have not kept the track of his family. 

Q • — Don’t }'ou know that this lady had really reached the age of 
ninety-two years? A. —I can’t say how old she was. 

Q . —Didn’t you hear her spoken of as one of the oldest people in 
the town? A. — I suppose I heard how old she w'as ; but I did not 
la} 7 it up against her because she had lived to be ninety years old. 

Q. —Now you think of it, 3'ou think she may have been ninety 
3’ears old ? A. — She may have been. 

Q .—Your own residence is how far from this pond? A .—I 
should think twenty or tw'enty-five rods. 

Q. — Which side of the pond are you? A. —The north-east side. 

Q. —An} r house between 3'ou and the pond? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — What does } r our own family consist of? A. — Wife and boy 
and grandmother. 

Q .—How old is } T our grandmother? A .—She was ninety last 

June. 

Q. — How long has she lived there? A. — She has lived there 
about twent}' } r ears. 

Q. — Is her health prett} 7 good, considering her age? A. — It is, 
sir. 

Q. — How old is your wife, — about your age ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — She is in pretty good health ? A. — Fair. 

Q .—You say your bo} 7 has had a little ailing? When was he* 
sick? A. — He was taken two years ago this winter. 

Q. — In the winter? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—What w 7 as the matter? A. — I didn’t know at that time : 

some kind of fever. , 

Q. — Did the doctor tell 3'ou what the cause of it was? A. — He 
couldn’t tell of any thing, unless it w r as malarial fever. 

Q .— Did he sa} 7 it w r as malarial fever? A. — He couldn’t tell 
what it was. He said he couldn’t think of an}' thing else. 

Q. — How long w 7 as he sick? A. — Six weeks; that is, he was 
up, and then taken down again. 


86 


Q. — Six weeks each time, or does that include both times? A. — 
Each time. 

Q. — How old is the boy ? A. — Seven in June. 

Q. — Go to school ? A. — No, sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Do I understand that it w r as generally 
considered in Mill bur } 7 that the death of those fishes was caused by 
the pollution of that stream? A. — I don’t know the reason for it. 

I don’t know of any reason, if it was not that. What the cause was 
of their death, I don’t know. 

Q. — Did they pass through the wheel-way? A .—They were 
below the tail-race of Mr. Morse’s mill; but I don’t think the } 7 got 
over there. 

Q. — Any possibility of any schools of fish being killed on the pas¬ 
sage through, or any thing of that kind? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — What I wanted to get at was, whether it was the general 
opinion of people in that vicinity that the fish were killed by the im¬ 
purity of the water, or not? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—You stated that you had heard a rumor that the fish were 
poisoned? A. —I said I heard a rumor that the fish were poisoned ; 
but the general opinion was that they were killed by the condition of 
the river. 

Q. — How do you account for the fact that there has been no such 
phenomenon since or before? A. — I don’t know, unless it was 
caused by the condition of the river at that time. The river was 
somewhat low ; and whether the water got too warm for them, or the 
w r ater was too rich, and that, with the heat together, cooked them, 
or what it was, I don’t know; but evidently they died, and we had 
to take care of them. The river was in very bad shape, at any rate. 
The water was low at that time. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —There are one or two questions sug¬ 
gested by this last examination, and one is, where were these fish 
with reference to Singletary Brook? Were any of them below 
Singletary Brook? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Singletary Brook is a brook that comes into Blackstone River 
from .the west, is it not, and comes down from Bramanville, that 
way? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Were some of these fish in that Singletary Brook? A. — I 
don’t know of any being in there. 

Q. — But some of them were in the river below Singletary Brook ? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q . —There was no dam or any thing to prevent the fish running up 
Singletary Brook, if they wanted to run out of the impurities of the 
Blackstone River? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — You do not undertake yourself to account for this singular 


37 


appearance of this large number of dead fish on that da}’, and never 
before or after, do you? A. —I don’t know what the reason was. 

Q- — Didn’t a good many people think that they were poisoned, 
for a purpose, by somebody? A. — I never heard but one person 
speak of it. 

Q. — Who was that? A. —That was Mr. L. L. Whitney. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —On that day, do you remember whether 
there was any current at that place, or not? A. — No, sir. 

Q .—What was the color of the water? A. — The color of the 
water was very muddy and yellow, if I remember right; in fact, the 
water last summer was different from what it ever was before. I 
don’t know the cause of it. It was not any different that day from 
what it had been for days before. 


TESTIMONY OF LEVI L. WHITNEY. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — You are one of the selectmen of Millbury? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —You have been on the board in previous years? A. — I was 
on the board the year before last, and for two years before that. 

Q. — Have you been a member of the Legislature? A. — I was a 
member of the Legislature last session. 

Q. — State where you live in Millbury? A. —I live in what is 
known as Bramanville, up about three-quarters of a mile from the 
Blackstone River, — half to three-quarters of a mile west from the 
river. 

Q. —You are familiar with the Blackstone River? A. — I pass it 
nearly every day. 

Q. — How long have you been familiar with it? A. —I have lived 
there now for ten years. 

Q .—Will you state its appearance ten years ago, as compared with 
what it is to-day ? A. —Well, there has been a gradual change in 
the appearance of the river every year: it has grown gradually more 
impure every season since I have been there. It was not a pure 
stream, by any means, ten years ago; but it was in a better condition 
than it is at the present time. Ten years ago, the sewage of the city 
of Worcester (that part that entered the river) was not probably 
more than one-third what it is at the present time. The river was in 
as bad a condition, I think, as it ever has been in my remembrance, 
a year ago last summer: that was a very dry season, and the river 
was very low. This last season was not quite so dry a season, and 
there was more water running; and we did not notice it quite as per¬ 
ceptibly as we did two years ago. 

Q. — State what you have noticed about the river, as to its color, 


38 


its odor, and appearance? A. —The general appearance of the river 
is like that of any filth}’, polluted stream. The water is black; the 
banks are black and filthy. The filth that comes down the river 
accumulates on the banks ; and the ice, as it forms on the river, has a 
yellowish appearance. Instead of being clear, pure ice, it is dark, 
discolored ice. 

Q .—Would you think of using that ice for domestic purposes? 
A. — No, I don’t think I should: it is not suitable for any purpose 
whatever. 

Q. — As to the color of the water, and the smell of the water? A. 
— The color is black, like any polluted stream ; and there is more or 
less offensive odor that comes from it all the time as I pass by it. I 
notice it in going on the highway from Millbury to Worcester. As 
I drive up the Millbuiy road, I notice the odor that comes from the 
river. 

Q. — How long a distance do you notice that? At.— Well, the 
whole distance from Millbuiy to Quinsigamond, where the sewer 
enters the Blackstone River. The river runs perhaps thirty rods 
from the road, almost parallel with it. 

Q. — Now, is this odor which you speak of that you notice some¬ 
thing about which there is no mistake, or is it imagination? A. — 
Well, there cannot be an}’ question what it is : it arises from the 
river. We notice it as we pass over the river, and as we are going 
towards the river; and, when we get within a few rods of it, we 
notice it there; and, as we pass over it, it becomes stronger ; and 
then, as we ride up the Worcester road, and all the way from the 
village to Quinsigamond Village. There is’nt much imagination 
about it: it becomes a reality to those who have to endure it. 

Q. — Can you describe to the Committee the nature of the odor? 
A. — I don’t know as I can. 

Q. — You can give them some idea, can you not? A. —It does 
not differ very much from any other odor which would be made of the 
same material of which this is made. I don’t know as I can 
describe it any better: I don’t know that it is any different from 
that. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) — How far from the river can you smell that 
odor? A. — At times fora quarter of a mile. Some families that 
live a quarter of a mile distant say that they are very much troubled 
with it just at night, in summer, in their houses. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)— You were familiar with those dead fish 

that were in the river last year, that have been talked about? A. _ 

The thing was brought to my attention. 

Q. —Has Mr. Chase described it as it was? A. — He has de¬ 
scribed it to you as I saw it when I got to the river. 


39 


Q • —Does Singletary Brook come in there? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do not the waters of the Blackstone back up until they reach 
the first privilege on Singletary Brook, John R. Rhodes’s? A .— 
The waters of the Blackstone River set back up, I might say, right 
to the dam of John Rhodes. 

Q. — Will you tell as to the management of the case for the town, 
whether the committee is composed of individual manufacturers and 
mill-owners, or whether they act by vote of the town? A. —There 
was a committee appointed by the town to take charge of the matter; 
and that committee had instructions from the town, by vote, to make 
an effort to prevent the pollution of the river, or to remedy the evil. 
That committee is made up of yourself [Mr. Flagg], Mr. C. D. 
Morse, and Mr. Waters. I believe you have the honor of being 
chairman of that committee. 

Q —How many inhabitants has Millbury? A. —The last census, 
I think, gives us 4 , 700 , — something very near 4 , 700 . 

Q. — What is the general business carried on there? A. —The 
principal business is manufacturing. The cotton and woollen manu¬ 
facture is the principal business located on the stream. 

Q. — Will you enumerate those mills? A. —The first mill on the 
Blackstone River, after it enters Millbury, is what is known as the 
Burling: Mills. That is a woollen-mill. 

o 

Q. — About how many people are dependent upon the Burling 
Mills? A. — It is a seven-set mill. I should say they employ 125 
to 140 hands in the mill; and, judging from other mills that I know 
more about, I should say the number dependent upon them would be 
about 250 or 300 . The next is Mr. Morse’s mill. That Mr. Chase 
is more familiar with than I am. lie says that there are from 50 to 
55 employed there. That is a sash and blind shop ; and nearly all 
the employes, I might say all, are men. The}" would represent from 
30 to 45 families. The next mill below that is the Atlanta Mill, 
which is a woollen-mill, and a four-set mill, I think it is, which 
would employ about 100 hands, I should think. The next mill is 
the Millbury Cotton-Mill, manufacturing print cloths, with about 150 
looms, employing 100 to 125 hands. The next mill below that is 
what is known as the Cordis Mills, one of the largest corporations 
we have in the place, manufacturing tickings. I should think the}' 
employed somewhere from 175 to 200 . The next mill below that is 
the Messrs. Simpson Satinet-Mills, perhaps a little larger than the 
Atlanta Mill, employing perhaps 150 hands, more or less. 

Q. — What is the distance between the first you mention, the 
Burling Mills and the Morse Mill? A. — I should say it was a 
mile : it may not be quite that. 

Q. — Within how short a distance are all those other mills situated? 


40 


A. — It is about the same distance from Mr. Morse’s Mill to the 
Atlanta Mills ; then the Atlanta Mills and the Millbury Cotton-Mills 
are within a hundred feet of each other; the Cordis Mills, perhaps, 
half a mile below ; and Mr. Simpson’s, perhaps a little short of half 
a mile from the Cordis Mill. Below Simpson’s is the print-cloth 
mill. They have about a hundred and fifty looms, — a hundred and 
seventy-five perhaps. I don’t know exactly the size of it: but it is 
the only mill in Sutton on the stream ; and from that it goes to 
Saundersville, in Grafton, and so on, down to Farnumsville, and the 
cotton-mills along there. 

Q .—Whether or not from the Burling Mills down to Blackstone 
there is an}" place where the river runs naturally like a river,— 
whether the field has not been, in fact all, taken up by these mills, — 
whether there is any thing but a succession of ponds? A. —The 
pond of one flows back, usually to the wheel of the other. They are 
all about as thick as they can be, and get the flow that they are 
entitled to; not much of any space between them. One pond flows 
back to the wheel of the other. 

Q. — How long have you lived in Millbury? A. — Ten years. 

Q. —You were born there? A. — No, sir: I was born in 
Princeton. 

Q. — You lived in Millbury a good many years ago? A. — I lived 
there from 1854 to 1859 . 

Q. — Were all those dams in existence then? A. —They were: 
yes, sir. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.)—Y ou live out in Bramanville? A. —• 
Yes, sir. 

Q. —How many mills are there on Singletary Brook? A .— 
Seven. 

Q • — What kind of mills are they? A. — There are three woollen- 
mills and four cotton-mills. 

Q. — Which is nearest to Blackstone River? A. —The first mill 
is Mr. Rhodes’s, — a cotton-mill. 

Q • — All these mills sewer into the river, I suppose. Their privies 
are all over the stream, are they not? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — None of them? A. — Some of them are ; not all of them. 

Q. — What ones are not? A. — The upper mill is not; and two 
of the others, I think, are not. 

Q. — Who owns them? A. —Mr. Walling owns one, and Crane 
and Waters the other. 

Q • —Do they use the water to wash the wool in the woollen-mills? 
A. — Yes, sir: they use the water. 

Q. — And for dyeing purposes ? A. — Yes, sir. 


41 


Q- — How far is the first privilege from the junction of Singletary 
Brook with the Blackstone River? A. — About half a mile : it may 
not be quite that. I should say it was about half a mile. 

Q . — You say that you have observed this smell as you were driv¬ 
ing to Worcester? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Any particular place where you discover it more than at 
others? A. —I don’t know as there is any particular place, unless 
it be some point where you come nearer the river. Around the turn 
where Mr. Chase lives, you come near the river; and, as you pass by 
Mr. Morse’s pond, you come as near the river as at any place. 

Q. —You would observe it as bad as anywhere where Mr. Chase 
lives? A. — I should think that it would be as strong there as any- 
where on the road. 

Q. — You mean Mr. George F. Chase’s? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Is there any odor of dye-stuffs perceptible? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — None whatever? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — How far did you ever smell that river? I mean, how far away 
from the river were you, at the farthest, when you have smelt it? 
A. —Well, perhaps twenty rods. 

Q. — When was that, if you can tell the time, and under what cir¬ 
cumstances? A. — No : I made no memorandum of it. 

Q. — Well, under what circumstances have you smelt it twenty 
rods from the river? A. — No extraordinary circumstances: the 
usual time in the summer, when the stream is low. Almost an}’ time 
in the summer you can smell it. I have no doubt, if you ever rode 
down the Millbury road in summer, you have smelt the same smell 
that I have a good many times. 

Q .— You don’t recall any particular time when you smelt it? 
A. —No, sir, no particular time : it is a general complaint. 

Q. — How long ago did you ever smell it twenty rods from the 
river? A. — Any season, the last four years. 

Q. — Prior to that, did you ever notice it? A. — Not as bad as it 
has been since. 

Q .— Did you ever notice it prior to that time? A. — I think it 
has been noticeable any time the past twelve years. 

Q. —Have you noticed it? A. — I don’t know as I have, particu¬ 
larly, myself. I don’t live on the banks of the river. 

Q, —Are you on any committee of the town connected with this 
matter? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Do you own any of these factories, or have any interest in 
them, on the Blackstone River? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Where are your factories? A. — I live in Bramanville, upon 
what is known as Singletary Brook. 

Q. — Do you own more than one mill up there? A. — I have one 
which I am operating now, and perhaps a small interest in another. 


42 


Q .—Which mills are you interested in? A. —One is a cotton- 
mill, and one (Crane & Waters) is a woollen-mill. It is the second 
mill on Singletary Brook from the Blackstone River. 

Q. — In your woollen-mill this water is used for dj T eing } T our wools? 
A. — We use the water for all the purposes that it is usually used for 
in a woollen-mill. 

Q. —And discharge it in the way that woollen-mills ordinarily dis¬ 
charge their water? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Who called your attention to those dead fish first? A .— 
Word was sent to me, during Sunday, that the river was full of dead 
fish. I don’t recollect, now, who first called my attention to it. I 
know I hitched up and drove down there. 

Q. — How long were you down there? A. —I was there all the 
afternoon. 

Q . — Do you remember when it was exactly? A. — It was some 
time in July". 

Q. —You don’t remember the Sunday? A. —I don’t remember 
the Sunday: no, sir. 

Q. — Have you any way of fixing that date? A. —It was, I 
should say, somewhere the last part of July. Mr. Hull thinks it was 
some Sunday in August. I got the impression that it was earlier 
than that. 

Q .—You have the impression that it was in July; but the other 
gentleman, who speaks to } r ou, thinks it was in August? A .—Yes, 
sir. I had the impression that it was in July; but it was in warm 
weather. 

Q. —Did you help get some of the fish out? A. — No, sir: I 
didn’t help get them out. 

Q. —You had nothing to do with it? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — How long did you observe the operation ? A. — I was there 
during the afternoon. We employed some men to get them out. 

Q .—Did you ever see any thing of the kind before? A. — I don’t 
know that I ever have : no, sir. 

Q. — And never since? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —It was a singular thing? A. —I thought so at the time. 

Q. — Did you ever hear that those fish were probably poisoned by 

somebody who put poison in for the purpose of killing them? A. _ 

You have got about three questions into one. I can answer one of 
the questions. You can cut the^question up. 

Q .—You may divide it to suit yourself, and answer it in detail. 
A. —The first question is, if I ever heard they were poisoned. It 
came to my notice some time within a week, or shortly after, that they 
might have been poisoned. 

Q. — You say it came to your notice : what do you mean by that? 


43 


A. —Some one, who did not know an}’ more about it than I did, sug¬ 
gested that the}' might have been poisoned. 

Q. —Is that an}' answerfto my question? A .—That is all the 
answer I have to make to that. 

Q. —Had you ever heard anything about it before that? A. — 
No, sir. 

Q. — Have you any means of accounting for this singular appear¬ 
ance of these tish on that Sunday afternoon, and never before or after? 
A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Have vou ever undertaken to account for it in your own 
mind? A. —No, sir, I have not. 

Q. —Can you now give a reason which you think is satisfactory at 
all? A. — I don’t know how to account for it, or any thing about it. 
I have never taken any pains to investigate the matter, or to find out 
about it. As one of the selectmen, it was my duty to remove them 
as soon as possible ; and I should think it was the wisest course to do 
to take them out of the river. 

Q. — I understand you to have answered that you have no opinion 
about it? A. —No, sir, I have not any idea. 

Tie-direct. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Have you ever heard anybody say that 
they thought, or had any reason to believe, that those fish had been 
poisoned, or any thing more than a casual remark by somebody, that 
they might have been? A. — No, sir, none whatever. 

Q. —That is all that that poisoning story amounts to? A. — At 
the time when I learned of it, I thought it came from an unreliable 
source ; that it was not any thing that it was worth while to investi¬ 
gate, and look into the matter at all. 

Q .—Was there any story about it? Was there any thing more 
than a mere surmise? A. — That is all. I don’t think that any one 
knew any thing about it, — only surmised that they might have been 
poisoned. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Was there not a circumstantial story 
about it, whether true or false? A. — Not to my knowledge. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Was there any story as to their being 
poisoned ? A. — Not that I ever knew of; not that I ever had any 
foundation for. 

The Chairman, —Mr. Whitney, as far as your observation ex¬ 
tends, how far do you think that these movements in the town of 
Millbury are based upon apprehensions concerning the public health, 
and how far upon apprehensions concerning the destruction of mill- 
power, and of the industries upon which the prosperity of the place 
depends ? A. — There is a general feeling about the town — I think it 


44 


4 * 

comes from our physicians there — that the people living on the banks 
of the Blackstone River are more or less affected from living where 
they do. I think there are a number of families where there has been 
sickness, which the physicians attribute to that cause. And as far as 
the damage to property is concerned, take the Burling Mills, for in¬ 
stance : they have not been running very much for the last six or 
eight months, — not to their full capacity, — and I think that the 
manufacturers attribute their stoppage, and the damage to the busi¬ 
ness, as much to the water which the}" had to use in connection with 
making their goods, or more, than to any other one thing. They 
manufacture a great man}" goods, and have to send them to market 
in a damaged condition, from the effects of the w r ater that they use to 
cleanse their goods. As to the injury to the water-power, I should 
not, perhaps, be a competent person to judge; but I think it is a 
damage to every one who is on the Blackstone from twenty-five to 
forty per cent. I think there is a depreciation of the property. If 
it was to be put into the market to-day, I think it would not bring as 
much by from twenty-five to forty per cent as it would if the stream 
was what it was fifteen years ago. 

Q. — I merely wanted to know how far this is a health question, 
and how far it is a property question. A. — I think it enters into 
both largely. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You spoke about the Burling Mills. 
Mr. Harrington had a large interest in that, had he not? A. — He 
did. 

Q. — He was here last winter, and told the Committee about the 
effect on his woollens? A. — I think he testified before the Com¬ 
mittee. 

Q . — He testified, did he not, that in his judgment the effect on the 
water, which prevented his washing his wool with it, was produced by 
the manufacturers above, and not by the sewage? A. — I don’t rec¬ 
ollect that he testified that way. 

Q . — Don’t you know that they have got artesian wells there that 
supply them with all the water they need to wash their wools, and 
that they use the water from those wells exclusively? A. — I think 
they have, within the last few months. I only know it from hearsay. 

Q. — Have you been to the Burling Mills to examine’, or have vou 
examined the product of the mills, so as to have any personal knowl¬ 
edge about it? A. — No, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL E. HULL. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. — I do. 
Q • — You have been one of the selectmen? A. — Yes, sir. 


45 


Q. — State bow far from the river you live? A. —I should think 
one-eighth of a mile, more or less. I don’t know exactty. 

Q. — How far from the river do you work? A. —About ten feet 
from it. 

Q. —How long have you been familiar with the river? A. — 
Well, thirt}’ } T ears or more. 

Q. — State to the Committee where you used to live, and where }’ou 
live now? A. —I formerly lived in the northerl}* part of Millbuiy. 
Part of the farm where I was born borders on the banks of the river. 
The house, perhaps, is a quarter of a mile from the river, — maybe 
more. 

Q. — How far from Quinsigamond? A. —About two miles. 

Q. — So that for thirty }’ears }’ou were familiar with the river ; you 
w r ere two miles from Quinsigamond, and now } t ou are familiar with it 
at Millbury? A .—I was familiar with it at Millbury at the same 
time. 

Q. — State its condition as you remember it when you lived two 
miles from Quinsigamond. A. —The stream was perfectly clear and 
pure, and no one at that time seemed to think it was otherwise. The 
boys and older persons used to bathe in it whenever they wished ; but 
since that time the river has changed very materially. 

Q. — You have heard the testimony of the preceding witnesses? 
A. — I have. 

Q. — You agree with them in what they said about the condition of 
the river in former years, and as to its present condition? A. — I 
do: yes, sir. 

Q. —You work now, you say, ten feet from the river? A. — The 
end of the room in which I work is about ten feet from the river. 
There is a narrow driveway between the end of the building and the 
river. 

Q. — State what you notice about the river from the place where 
you work? A. — I have noticed, in the summer-time particularly, a 
very offensive odor ; and in the morning, when I go and open the 
windows, it is extremely offensive, and I have been obliged to shut 
them. 

Q. —Is this odor from the dye-stuffs used in the mills on Single- 
tarv Brook in Bramanville? A. — No, sir. 

Q. What is the nature of the odor? A. —Well, perhaps I could 
not describe it any better than Mr. Whitney did, — that it is a very 
offensive odor. The most I can say of it is, that it stinks. 

Q. —Well, is it of the nature of privy odor? A. —Yes, sir. 

q, _Do the men where you work take any .precautions to shut it 

out in summer there? A. —They do. 

Q. — What has been the effect of it on your health, do you think? 

A. — I think it has not been favorable. 


46 


Q. — What have 3^011 noticed about it? A .—A year ago last 
summer I was able to work nearly all the time, but didn’t feel well. 
In the winter I felt better. Last summer I was obliged to be away 
from my work for five or six weeks: I was sick, and I attributed it 
to the bad state of the river. 

Q. — What was the nature of your sickness? A. —Well, I don’t 

* 

know as I can describe it: it was a sort of exhaustion. 

Q. —Am I not right in saying that it was of the nature of dj’sen- 
tery? A .—Yes, sir: it came to that at last. And mornings, when 
I would go to the shop and open the windows, the smell would fairly 
gag me, as 3’ou might sa3 T : it was ver3 r offensive. I presume that 
part of the shop in which I work is in realit3 r the worst room in the 
shop, where 3*011 get the odor more perceptibl3 T than in any other 
room. 

Q. —Did this affect your stomach at the shop? A. —It has, 3'es, 
sir, —caused vomiting. 

Q. — What has been the general opinion of the workmen in the 
shop there as to the effect of the river? A. —The general opinion is, 
that it is not conducive to health. 

Q. —What has been the general opinion throughout the town, 
among the people, as to the effect of the odors? A. —That is the 
general opinion of the town, so far as I have been able to learn. If 
it would be proper for me to sa3’, one gentleman here asked if any 
one had left the shop on account of the smell? I know one young 
man who left the shop, and his father told me he left 'because he 
thought his health would be much better than it would be if he re¬ 
mained there. He went to Worcester, and is working in Worcester 
now. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) — On account of the effluvia? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — Noton account of business? A. —No, sir, not on account 
of business. He is working in the same business at Worcester. 

Q -— Does he get the same or more pay? A. — I think he does 
not get so much pa3 r . 

Q. (By a member of the Committee.) —Did he leave Mr. Morse’s 
mill? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q . (By Mr. Flagg.) — Is it a matter of general talk among those 
who work there, that they had better work in some healthier place ? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Wasn’t the place healthy enough ten years ago? A. _It 

had been always considered as healthy as any place of the kind, as 
far as I know. 


47 


Cross-Examination. 

Q. (B3’ Mr. Goulding.) —Where do 3'ou work, sir? A. — I work 
for C. D. Morse & Co. 

Q • — And 3011 work in the room nearest the pond ? A. —Yes, sir : 
nearer the river than an3' of the other rooms. The race-way runs in 
front of the mill; and I work in the rear part of the mill, down by 
the river. 

Q • — You work down in the basement? A. —No, sir : it is not a 
basement, but it extends back of the main building, — an L. 

Q . — Is it over the flume ? A. — No, sir. 

Q • —Anywhere near the flume? A. — Well, it is below the flume. 

Q* — ITow long have 3*011 worked there? A. —Ten 3'ears ago last 

J anuarv. 

%/ 

Q • — For ten 3'ears you have worked in the same room ? A. — No, 
sir, not in the same room that I work in now. The buildino- has been 

O 

built within five or six 3'ears. 

Q . — Have 3'ou always worked equalty near to the river? A .—- 
Not quite so near : no, sir. 

Q -—Nearly the same? A. —Yes, sir: the difference is simply 
the length of the building in which I am now. 

Q .—As a general thing 3'ou have the windows open in summer, 
when 3'ou work, don’t 3’ou? A. — As a general thing, I want to have 
them open if possible, and usuall3 T do. 

Q. — As a matter of fact 3'ou have them open most of the time, but 
sometimes shut them? A. — Yes, sir, very frequently. 

Q. —Have you alwa3 r s been in pretty good health, or is 3'our health 
somewhat uncertain? A. —I have alwa3*s considered myself healthy. 
I have not been sick but once, excepting last summer, to call a doctor. 

Q. — When were 3'ou sick before? A. — Eight 3'ears ago last fall, 
I think. 

Q. — With the exception of that, 3'ou have alwa3's been healthy 
until last summer? A. — No, sir, I didn’t say hcalth3 T . I said I 
never had been obliged to call a physician. A year ago last summer 
I w’as quite ill; and, if I had felt able, I should not have continued at 
m3 T business. 

Q. —But 3*011 did work all through the summer? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Had you been healthy up to that time, always? A. — Yes, 
sir, perfectly healthy ; always considered myself well. 

Q. —Last summer you had the d3’sentery? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — When did you have that trouble? A. —Well, I did not feel 
-well, sa3'the fore part of J11I3’; and it kept growing upon me, this bad 
feeling, and finally the dysentery came on about the last of July or 
first of August. 


48 


Q .—How long were you sick with the dysentery? A. — It was 
two or three weeks before that was checked. I was away from the 
shop for five or six weeks. 

Q. —Who was your doctor? A. — Dr. Webber. 

Q. — Of Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Flow near to the river do you live? A. — I should say 
perhaps between an eighth and a quarter of a mile. I don’t know 
exactly, but an eighth, certainly: it may be a quarter. 

Q. — Which way from the river? A. — It would depend upon 
where you place the river. The river runs all around me, as you 

might say. 

0 

Q. —Whereabouts, exactly, is your residence? How far from the 
shop? Can’t you locate your residence an } 7 nearer, in reference to 
the river? A. — I should say that the river at the shop is as near 
to my house as at any point. 

Q. —In what direction are you from the shop? A. — I am in a 
south-easterly direction. 

Q. — Who was this young man whose father told you that he left 
the shop, and went to Worcester on account of his health? A. — His 
name is Wood. 

Q. —What is his father’s name? A. —Zebedee. 

Q. — And the young man’s? A. — I think his name is Zebedee, 
jun. I am not positive as to the young man’s name ; but we have 
always called him “ Zeb.” I don’t know whether that is his name 
or not. 

Q. — Do you know for whom he works in Worcester? A. — I do 
not: I can ascertain. 

Q. — When did he go to Worcester? A. —Well, it was in the 
summer, I think : I can’t tell you when. 

Q. —Last summer? A. —Yes: I should say it was some time 
previous to Mr. Morse’s fire; I should say in July or August, 
perhaps. 

Q. —The fire was last October? A. — Yes, sir. 

Mayor Stoddard (of Worcester). At some time during these 
proceedings, I desire to have the Committee examine this locality, 
from Worcester to Millbury. I know there are some members of the 
Committee who have seen it; but I think it would be well for all the 
members of the Committee to visit it. I should hope that, before 
these hearings close, the gentlemen of the Committee would come to 
Worcester, and examine our system of sewerage. 

Adjourned to Wednesday at 10 a.m. 


49 


% 


SECOND HEARING. 

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 1882. 

The hearing was resumed at 10 a.m. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS WHEELOCK. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Mr. Wkeelock, } t ou reside in Millbury? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q- — How long have }’ou resided there ? A. — A little over ten 
years. 

Q. — Where do 3’ou do business ? A. — Worcester. 

Q. — Where is your house situated in relation to the Blackstone 
River? A. — It is about forty rods, perhaps, in a north-east direc¬ 
tion, in a direct line from the river. 

Q. — State what you have noticed at your house, of the condition 
of the river. A. — Well, I have noticed at times in summer, when 
the water is low, a very disagreeable smell there. 

Q. — Are you accustomed to drive back and forward between Mill¬ 
bury and Worcester? A. —Not very often, sir: I go usually on the 
cars ; but I have driven up. 

Q. — What have } t ou noticed when you have been driving back and 
forward ? A. — The same disagreeable odor. 

Q. —You are a member of the school committee, and have been for 
some years? A. —Eight years, I think. 

Q. — Will 3*011 state to the Committee what 3 r ou have noticed in 
visiting the schools, taking the school nearest Worcester first, and 
then going on down the river? A. —The school at Burling Mills is 
up towards Worcester. 

Q. — How far from the mouth of the sewer is the Burling Mills? 
A. —Perhaps three miles, sir. The schoolhouse stands upon a hill, 
about, I should say, two hundred feet from the river ; and in the 
summer-time, when I have been there, and the windows were open, 
I could see or feel that same smell that I always smell when I come 
down the road. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Excuse me : do you pay taxes on prop¬ 
erty in Worcester ? A. — I only pay a tax on personal property : I 
have a store there. 

Q. (By Mr. F lagg.) —How large a school is this one at Burling 
Mills ? A. — The average attendance is about forty scholars through¬ 
out the year. 


50 


Q. — In visiting that school, what have } T ou noticed there as to the 
river? A. — I have noticed the same disagreeable smell there. 

Q. — What is the next school on the river, or near the river? A. 

— The next school on the river, or near the river, is the school that 
is called the Union Building. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Where is the Union Building? A. — 
That is down near the depot, and perhaps two hundred and fifty or 
three hundred feet from the river. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Is that in the centre of the town of Mill- 
bury? A. — Yes, sir: it is the schoolhouse that is called the Union 
Building. 

Q. — How many schools are there there? A. — There are four 
schools in one building, common schools ; and then, a few rods on, 
not many rods from that building, is the high-school building, in which 
there is a high school. The high school will average in its attend¬ 
ance about sixty scholars through the }’ear. The grammar school in 
the Union Building will average about thirty-five ; the next lower 
grade, about forty ; the primary and sub-primary, so called, will aver¬ 
age in their attendance, I should say, sixty in the sub-primary, and 
fifty in the primary. Those four schools are in the Union Building. 
There are more scholars there ; but I am speaking of the average at¬ 
tendance. 

Q. — How many scholars are there in all the five schools? A. — 
Thirty-five in the grammar, say about fort}' in the intermediate, fifty 
in the primary, and sixt}’ in the sub-primary. 

Q. — What has been called to 3'our attention in this building as to 
the river? A. — Well, some of the teachers, two or three of them I 
have in mind who have been there, who have occasionally called my 
attention to this same disagreeable smell. 

Q. —The next school on the river is situated how far from this 
one? A. — I should say three-quarters of a mile. 

Q. — How many schools in that school-building? A. — Four. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — That is down below Millbury? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —It is in the town of Millbury? A. —Yes, 
sir: in the lower part of the town. 

Q. — About how many scholars in the four schools? A. — I 
should sav about two hundred. 

4 / 

Q. — How far is this school-building from the banks of the river? 
A. — It is a matter that has not been called to m} T attention at all; 
but I should think it would be about two hundred feet. 

Q. — What has been called to your attention as to the river? A. 

— The same thing has been called to my attention by the teachers 
in the summer; not so much in the winter. 


51 


Q -—You say you have been ten years in Millbury: during that 
time 3'ou have become acquainted with the people and their feelings ? 
A. — Somewhat. 

Q. — In your opinion, is the agitation upon this subject due to a 
fear of the loss of water-power alone, or to a general fear as to its 
effect upon health? A. — Well, I had supposed that the people 
regarded their health as of more importance than any other subject 
that was before them. 

Q. —Are the people there, other than the mill-owners, interested 
in this matter? A. — I think they are, sir, decidedty. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —You mean that they regard their health 
as more important as applied to this particular matter, not on general 
principles? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —How long have 3 T ou noticed this smell? 
A. —Well, I have noticed it for the last four or five 3 T ears. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) — Whether, during that time, it has increased 
or diminished? A. — It certainty, in opinion, has not decreased ; 
and I think that I have smelt as much or more of it: but I do not 
drive up and down the road from my house to Millbury now as much 
as I did four or five 3 T ears ago. I go almost altogether in the cars. 

Q. (B3 7 Mr. Flagg.) —State whether 3’ou noticed this smell from 
your house as badty five 3 r ears ago as it is now. A. — I do not 
think we smelt it as badty five years ago as we did last summer. 

Cross - Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What is your business? A. — I have 
a boot and shoe store in Worcester. 

Q. — Where is your boot and shoe store? A. — 38 Front Street, 
Worcester. 

Q. — Where did 3’ou live before 3'ou lived at Millbury ? A. — Be¬ 
fore I lived in Millbury, I lived in Elizabeth, N.J. 

Q. — And 3 T ou came to Millbury just ten 3'ears ago? A. — Well, 
it is ten years ago last May, I think, sir, since I came there, and 
about ten years ago last September since I bought the place which I 
now occupy. 

Q. — Were 3’ou connected with Millbury before? A. —No, sir. 

Q .—Never were there? had no relatives there? A. —-Well, my 
wife had some relatives there. 

Q. — Is your wife a Millbury woman? A. —She is a Sutton 
woman, sir. 

Q. — And your residence is forty rods from the river in which 
direction? A. — About south-west, I should think the river was, 
from m3' house. 

Q. —Are you above Morse’s factory, up towards Worcester? A. 
— Yes, sir. 


52 


Q. — How fur above Morse’s factory towards Worcester are you? 
A. — I should think three-quarters of a mile, or a little less. 

Q. — Which side of the main road to Worcester are you? A. — I 
am on perhaps it would be called the east side of the main road. 

Q. — You are on the main road, are you ? A. — No, sir : my house 
is not on the main road. It is on what is called Park Hill Road. 
My land comes right down to the main road. 

Q. —Is it on the old road to Worcester? A. — I presume it is ; 
but I don’t know. 

Q. —At times, in summer, when the water is low, you have noticed 
this smell? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —What docs your family consist of? A. —My family consists 
of a wife and three children now, sir. 

Q. — How old are your children? A — My children are from 
twenty to twenty-nine years of age. 

Q .—They live at home? A. — Two of them are at home, and 
the other one is close by there. 

Q. —The other lives close by? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How near to the river? A. — About the same distance that 
m3- house is, sir. 

Q .—You sa} r } t ou are three-quarters of a mile above Mr. Morse’s 
factor}'. Are }'ou opposite Morse’s pond ? Does Morse’s pond flow 
back, in other words, to a point opposite your house? A. —No, sir : 
I think it is below. 

Q. — How much below the head of Morse’s pond? A. — I really 
cannot tell you : I have not examined that localit} 7 at all. 

Q. —Does not Morse’s pond flow up to a point nearly opposite 
3'our house? A. — I have not looked at the localit} 7 : I am not able 
to tell you certainly. 

Q. — You are not able to tell from memory ? A. — No, sir : it is so 
seldom that I go that way, that I pay but little attention to the water. 

Q. —In going from your house to the Millbury station, don’t you 
go by Mr. Morse’s pond? A. —Yes, sir : in going down I would go 
through the village ; but I do not go by his shop. The pond comes 
up towards my house; but to state the number of feet or rods, I can¬ 
not. 

Q. — Cannot you give an idea of how near to your house the head 
of the pond comes? A. —I really do not know where the head of it 
is. 

Q. — What is the prevailing direction of the winds in summer¬ 
time? Have you observed that? A .—Well, I should suppose they 
were west and south, — west winds largely. 

Q .—In summer? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you ever observed the direction of the wind at the 


53 


times when you have noticed these smells? A. —Well, I think I 
have noticed the smell more when the wind comes from the north and 
west, or north-west. I won’t be positive about that: it is a matter to 
which my r attention has not been called. 

Q • — It may’ be south-west, may^ it not, as far as you remember? 
■ 4 * —I should be rather inclined to think that we get it stronger when 
it comes from the north-west than when it comes from the south-west. 

Q • — Do you mean to testify, that when y r ou have a good, clear, 
bracing breeze from the north-west, you get the smell more than 
3'ou do when the wind is from the south-west? A. —I am not so clear 
about “ a clear, bracing wind ; ” but, when the wind comes from that 
direction, I think I have smelt it stronger there than I have when it 
comes from the south. I am not positive about that: it is a matter 
that my attention has never been called to. I know I have smelt it; 
but I did not go out and look at the direction of the wind. 

Q. — Then, it is true that at times you have smelt it, but y*ou have 
not noticed the direction of the wind ? A. — I have noticed in both 
of those two schools, the first two I have spoken of, when the 
windows and doors were open, and the wind blowing though the 
schoolhouse in summer, the same smell. I should not smell it so 
strong if it came from the east or from the south. 

Q. —When the wind is in that direction, would you smell it at all? 
A. —Very" likely’ I might some : I don’t say that I should not. 

Q. — It is when the water is low that you have observed this 
smell? A. —It is when the water is low I have observed it more 
than when it is high, of course. 

Q. — When was this schoolhouse that y’ou have visited at Burling 
Mills built? A. — I am not able to tell you. 

Q. — Is it an old building, or one recently built? Was it built 
before y T ou came to town? A. —Built before I came there, sir. 

Q .—What times do y T our schools have their summer vacation? 
A. —The summer vacation commences usually’ the first week in July. 

Q. — And continues until when? A. —We usually commence 
about the last week in August. 

Q .— Have you noticed this smell before the vacation, or after? 
A. —Well, I think I have noticed it both before and after. 

Q. — Where do those scholars that go to this school at Burling 
Mills mostly live? A. —Well, they mostly live, perhaps, in the 
village near Burling Mills. 

Q. —What do you mean, nearer to the river than the schoolhouse 
mostly ? A. — Some of them would be nearer, and some of them 
would be just about the same distance. 

Q. (By a member of the Committee.) —You say you live east or 
west of this main road? A. — It is called east; a little north-east. 


54 


Q, (By Mr. Goulding.) -—These things you have noticed when 
you have been visiting the school in summer? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —Now, this building that you call the Union Building is just 
north of the road that goes to Bramanville, is it not? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — And the Providence Depot is near the schoolhouse? A .— 
About two hundred feet right east, I should say, of the depot, or 
north-east. 

Q. — And the river is the other side of the depot? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Does the river, after it passes the depot, get nearer to the 
school than it is at the depot? A.— I shouldn’t think it was much 
nearer. 

Q. —Now, is that bridge that crosses the road that goes to Bra¬ 
manville called Govvan’s Bridge sometimes? A. —I have heard 
them speak of Gowan’s Bridge ; but I could not realty swear whether 
that is the bridge or not. 

Q. —Does the water from the next dam below set up as far as the 
depot, or as far as that school? A. — I cannot tell, sir. 

Q. —Occasionally, you say, they have called your attention to the 
offensive smell there? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — This school that is three-quarters of a mile below the Union 
Building is below the Cordis Mills, is it not? A. — I don’t know 
which mill they call the Cordis Mill: I know where the Union School 
Building is. 

Q. —-You have devoted yourself mostly to the schools? A. — I 
am either in the schools or in Worcester all the time, sir. 

Q. —If you do not know where Gowan’s Bridge is, or where the 
Cordis Mill is, or any of those localities, you really do not know 
much about the sentiment of Mill bur}’ from an}’ inquiry you have 
made yourself. Have you been around through the town to inquire 
what they think of this matter in particular? A. —No, sir, I don’t 
go round the town inquiring particularly what they say about it. 
The people of Millbury are occasionally in my store, — quite fre¬ 
quently, perhaps, come in there ; and I hear them express their feel¬ 
ings about it, and I see them occasionally in meetings. I do not go 
around particularly to make inquiry, but simply see them as you and 
I would see our neighbors anywhere and everywhere. 

Q. — Have you any knowledge from any source, — I do not ask 
you as intimating that you have not, but I want to get your idea 
about it, — have you any knowledge from any source so that you can 
testify to this Committee that you know what the public sentiment of 
Millbury is on this question? A. — I think I have. 

Q .—What is the business of Mr. C. D. Morse? A. — He is a 
manufacturer of sashes, blinds, and doors. 


55 


Q. — What is the business of Mr. Flagg, besides being a good law¬ 
yer? A. — Mr. Flagg has been interested in manufacturing there. 

Q • — What is the business of Mr. Waters, the other gentleman on 
the Committee? A. — I think he is engaged in manufacturing. 

Q. — Is there anj’body that you know of that is agitating this sub¬ 
ject, as a member of any committee, that is not a manufacturer? A. 
— I don’t know as I know of am’body in Millbury that, when you 
talk about it with them, but what are agitating this subject. The 
people are talking about it. It is not simply the manufacturers : it is 
the men that we come in contact with every da} T . 

Q. — I did not ask you that question. I asked 3*011, do 3’ou know 
of an3’body in the town of Millbury, that is a member of any commit¬ 
tee agitating this subject, that is not a manufacturer? A. —Now, 
you have got the word “committee” so many times that I really 
don’t comprehend } T ou, Mr. Goulding. 

Q .—I will endeavor to state it slowly, so that you can compre¬ 
hend it. Do } T ou know of anybod3 r in Millbury who is engaged in 
this subject, or doing aity thing about it, as a member of an3 T com¬ 
mittee, representing an3 r bod3*, who is not also a manufacturer? A .— 
I don’t know that I do, sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Are those manufacturers the people 
who are usuall3 T selected on committees in general town affairs, aside 
from this? A. —I think they have been on other committees. I 
am not certain about that. I take but little interest in the political 
affairs of the town. 

Q. — I merely wanted to know whether the3 T are the class of men 
whom the people of the town are in the habit of selecting for service 
on committees? A. — I think they are. 

Q. — On other questions ? A. — On other questions. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Will you tell me whether your town is in 
the habit of selecting for committees for any duty the men as much 
or more interested in the matter to be considered by the Committee 
than an3 T other people in town ? How is it about that ? Are they in 
the habit of taking men who are themselves pretty actively inter¬ 
ested? A. — I think they do. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)—I forgot to ask you one question, Mr. 
Wheelock. During the last two or three years, has there been any 
noticeable sickness among the scholars in these schools? A. — Two 
years ago this winter, our schools were very badly broken into on 
account of a disease which was in town; and last year, and even this 
winter, our average attendance has been very much lower than it 
was the previous three or four years, before I was a member of the 
board. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Any epidemic in the schools? A. —The 


56 


diseases last year, and the year before, were called by the plr^sicians 
scarlet fever and canker-rash. Our schools have been broken into on 
account of sickness for the last three winters more than they have 
previously been. Two years ago this winter, and a } T ear ago this 
winter, they were largely affected with the canker-rash and scarlet 
fever, so much so that the Committee had talked considerabty about 
closing the schools at one time. We did not close them, however. 
That was last year, and the year before. 

Q. —Have there been any cases of diphtheria? A .— I would 
not say that, as a general thing, there had been any diphtheria. No 
doubt there have been some cases. 

Q. —Do you know of any cases reported as diphtheria? A. — 
Well, I cannot call their names. I ver}' often go into a school, and 
ask why such a boy is not there ; and the}" have told me he was sick 
with diphtheria: but I have no particular recollection of the names. 

Q. — Is this trouble more noticeable in winter than in summer? 
A. — I think the disease of canker-rash was more general in the 
fall and winter than in the summer-time. 

Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) —Do you know whether there have been 
any cases of typhoid fever in those schools? A. —No, sir: I can’t 
say whether there have been or not. 

Q. — Do you know of any cases of diphtheria? I don’t under¬ 
stand } T ou to say that you have known of an} T cases, but that you 
went into a school, and asked if a boy was there, and the} T said he 
was sick with diphtheria. A. — No, sir: I can’t say there was any 
particular boy or girl who had diphtheria. 

Q. — Do you know of a single case of diphtheria? A .—Do you 
mean, if I have seen it myself, —been to the house? 

Q .—I mean, when you have been about the schools inquiring in 
this way, and found that certain children were absent, do you remem¬ 
ber any single instance where the disease was diphtheria? A. — I 
cannot remember. 

Q. — Or how many they have told you were sick with diphtheria? 
A. — No, sir. I see so many of them, and ask so many questions 
in regard to why they are not there, that I don’t remember. I know 
that sometimes they have said that some were sick with diphtheria, 
and some with canker-rash ; but to say how many were sick with 
diphtheria, I cannot. 

Q. (By Mr. (Moulding.) — How many schools are there in town? 
A. — There are sixteen. 

Q. —In various parts of the town ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How many are within two or three, or three or four, hundred 
feet of Blackstone River? A. —Ten. 

Q. — Ten buildings ? A. — Ten schools. 


57 


Q • —IIow many schoolhouses are there in town? A. —There are 
four schoolhouses. 

Q. — In the whole township? A. — Oh! in the whole township, 
there are seven that I think we occupy. 

Q. — Seven schoolhouses occupied ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q ‘—And of those, four are in the village and on the Blackstone 
River? A. —They are on the Blackstone River, sir. 

Q • —These epidemics that you speak of were general throughout 
the town, were they not? A. — I don’t think they were, sir: I am 
not positive about it. My schools were right down on the river. I 
did not go up to West Millbuiy, nor to the Old Common, until this 
y ear. I would say, however, that I visited the Old Common yester¬ 
day, and looked up the average ; but it was examination-day there, 
and their average this winter was better than last. That is perhaps 
a mile and a half from the river. 

Q. — Last winter, how did you say the average there compared 
with the average down by the river ? A. — Their average has always 
been better since I have been on the board. 

Q. — Where are the other schoolhouses, besides the one in West 
Millbury, that are not on the river? A. — Well, there is the Old 
Common and West Millbuiy. I think the rest of them are on the 
river, that we occupy. 

Q. — You did not close your schools either winter? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —Was not that a matter of talk in the school committee? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Q.—The proposition was to close what schools? A. — Well, to 
close the schools at the Union Building and at the Providence-street 
school. 

Q. —Where is Providence Street? A. —That is the one down in 
the lower village that we have been talking about. 

Q. —That proposition was talked about? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—And finally decided against? A. — We decided not to do 

it. 

Q. — An}' physician consulted by the board? A. —Yes, sir: one 
of the members of the board is a physician. 

Q. — His advice was taken about it? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.)—D o you know whether the mortality has 
increased among the pupils in those schools during the last four 
years? A. — I don’t know whether it has or not. I do not keep the 
record : therefore I cannot tell. The scholars are coming and going. 
It is a manufacturing place: but the average number of our scholars 
in the schools is about the same ; and my attention was never called 
in that direction. 

Q. — Was that scarlet fever that you refer to epidemic? A. — I 
think it was. I don’t remember how many cases there were, sir. 


58 


Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) —In going about to ascertain the number 
of scholars absent from the schools, have you noticed an}' difference 
in the number of absentees from those causes, diphtheria, and so on, 
in those schools near the river and the other schools? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q .—You have noticed a larger number of scholars absent in the 
schools near the river? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — And you think from those causes? A. — I am not prepared 
to say, for I am not a medical man ; but I know there are less schol¬ 
ars absent from the schools in other parts of the town than from 
those near the river. 

Q. — There is a larger number absent from those schools from 
sickness? A. —Yes, sir, from sickness. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —I would like to ask whether those 
schools along the river are not attended by the children of operatives 
in the factory, and whether it is not a general truth, as far as you 
have observed, that that class of scholars do not attend so regularly 
as in the farming districts in the back parts of the town ? Is it not 
true that those districts show a better average attendance than the 
schools in the factory villages? A. — Well, sir, I should be of the 
opinion that it was. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Those four schools that you speak of take 
up all the school population of that part of the town? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Not only the mill population, but all others? A. —Yes, sir, 
all others. 

Q. — And the other schools of the town, in Bramanville, for 
instance, how do the}’ compare? A. — Bramanville is about the 
same as Providence Street and the Union Building. 

Q. (By a member of the Committee.)—What proportion of the 
scholars in town attend the schools along the river? A .—Well, 
suffice it to say, a very large proportion : I have not got the average. 

Q. — Now, in saying that there are more scholars absent from 
those schools sick, do you take into account the proportion, as com¬ 
pared with the number of scholars? A .—Yes, sir. I take into 
account the average attendance. For instance, take the school at 
the Old Common: the whole number may be thirty, — the average 
attendance should be twenty-five. Take the schools near the river, 
I should say the average would not be more than perhaps twenty, 
with the same number of scholars. 

Q. — Have you been familiar with the attendance at those schools 
for ten years? A. — I have been on the board, I think, eight years. 

Q .— Has this proportion increased during the last eight years? 
You say the proportion of absentees from sickness is greater at those 
schools near the river than it is away from the river. Now, is that 


59 


proportion to-day about as it was eight years ago, or has the propor¬ 
tion changed during the last eight years? Take it five 3’ears ago, 
was the proportion of absentees the same then as it is to-da}-? A. — 
I speak particularly of last winter, two j’ears ago, and the present 
winter, owing to the diseases that have been prevalent among the 
scholars for the last three 3*ears. I could not swear positively with 
regard to previous winters. 


TESTIMONY OF REV. PHILIP Y. SMITH. 

Q. (B} r Mr. Flagg.) —Where do you live, Mr. Smith? A. —In 
Grafton. 

Q. — In what part of Grafton? A. — North-east from Blackstone 
River. It is called Wilkinsonville, which is in Sutton; but the 
house that I occupy is in Grafton proper. 

Q. — You are a minister of the gospel, and have a parish? A .— 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you been there? A. — Nearly seventeen 
years, lacking five months. 

Q. —During that time have 3*011 noticed a change in the river at 
that point? A. — Yes, sir. Especially 7 in the last five y^ears, the 
change has been very marked. 

Q. —Did 3’ou formerly bathe in the river? A. —I did, sir. 

Q. — Did others in the village use it as a bathing-place? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do 3’ou now bathe in the river? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Do others bathe in the river? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — What have you noticed during the last year or two as to the 
condition of the river? A. —In crossing the Blackstone River by 
the bridge, in going to and from the depot, the odor is very noticeable ; 
and especially twice a y’ear is it very marked, namely, in the fall 
season, when the water is very' low, and in the spring, when the 
water is very high. 

Q. —How far do you live from the river? A. — About three 
hundred feet. 

Q. — Do you notice these offensive odors there without going out 
of the house? A. —Not as heavily as nearer the river. 

Q. — But you do notice them? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—Do your parishioners complain of this matter? A. —They 
do, sir, especially those who live near the margin of the river. 

Q. — Have some of them left town, assigning as a reason that 
they did not like the condition of the river? A. — Two or three 
families have complained to me, and said that was one cogent reason 
wh3 T they should leave town, and did finally leave. 


60 


Q. — There are some among your parishioners who are not mill- 
owners? A. — I have not the honor, sir, of having a mill-owner in 
my congregation. 

Q. —Are you familiar with the schools? A. —Yes, sir: I am a 
member of the board. 

Q. — In your opinion, does the pollution of the river affect the 
salubrity of the air about those schools? A. — In the Saundersville 
school — 

Q. —How far is Saundersville from Wilkinsonville? A. —A 
little less than half a mile, in a straight line, from the Sutton depot. 

Q. — Now, will you tell about the effect of the river upon the air at 
those schools? A. — In the months of April and May last, during 
the latter part of April, and two weeks in Ma} T , the schools in Saun¬ 
dersville were very much depleted, so that in one school, for at least 
ten da} T s, there were only six scholars out of an average attendance 
of upwards of fifty-four; and in the upper school I think they were 
reduced to nine, out of an average of forty-five. The prevailing 
troubles there were measles and scarlatina, with diphtheria. There 
were two cases of diphtheria near my house. The children who were 
sick attended that school. Their names were Annie and Susie Red- 
path. They were attended b}^ Dr. Thomas T. Griggs of Grafton. 

Q. — What was the state of health among the children in the 
other schools in Grafton ; that is, away from the river? A. — In the 
Centre, the number of scholars was not as small from similar causes 
as in the schools nearer the river. 

Q. — That is, I understand, the sickness was not as great in the 
other schools as in those by the river? A. —That is my understand¬ 
ing, sir. 

Q • — At this time of sickness in the schools, did }'ou notice the 
condition of the river? Was the odor more offensive than usual, or 
as usual? A. — Well, sir, I cannot speak positively. I don’t 
remember, in relation to that matter, whether the odor was more or 
less offensive than in common times, as*we often smell it. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q . (Ity Mr. Goulding.) — How long have you been on the school 
board? A. —Nearly five }’ears, sir. 

Q. — And your duties take you into all parts of Grafton? A .— 
Yes, sir. I am the chairman of the board, and I visit all the 
schools. 

Q. — Your parish includes what part of Grafton? Your parish¬ 
ioners reside where, mostly? A. — My parish includes Grafton, 
with the villages of New England Village and Saundersville, and 
Farnumsville, in Grafton and Sutton. I have members in Worcester, 
in Auburn, and in Uxbridge. 


61 


Q. —Where is your church, sir? A. —In Sutton. 

Q • — Well, the villages of Wilkinsonville and Saundersville, as ap¬ 
pears by the map, are in the south part of Grafton? A .—My 
church is not in Grafton. 

Q. —No, sir : I mean the villages, as appears by the map? A. —■ 
Yes, sir. 

Q •—Now, when this depletion of those schools occurred, last 
April and Ma} 7 , I understand that you did not notice about the odor 
from the river, in that connection? A. —No, sir, I did not. 

Q. — The two things were not connected in your mind at all, so as 
to lead } t ou to make observations? A .—I was impressed, sir, that 
one of the chief causes of this trouble could arise, and did arise, 
from the effluvia from the river ; but I did not realize any extra odor, 
other than I find every day in those two seasons, — in the spring and 
fall seasons. 

Q. — Was there formerly a pond near Sutton station which has 
been drawn down by the dam being swept away ? A .—There was, 
sir. 

Q. — When was that dam swept away? A .—My recollection of 
it is, on the 11 th of December, three years ago. 

Q. —That pond has never been filled since? A. — Never. 

Q . —And the area that was covered by the pond has lain exposed? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —There was also a depletion, to some extent, of the schools in 
other parts of Grafton, was there not, at this same time? A. — In 
the Centre, }’es, sir. 

Q. — Grafton Centre is on a very high hdl, is it not, away from all 
rivers and floods, unless it is a great flood ? A . — Comparatively 
so. 

Q . —It is the highest part of the town, is it not? A. — Yes, sir : 
it is the loftiest part of the town. 

Q. — And you say there was a depletion of the schools there. 
Now, how did that depletion compare with the depletion down in 
your region? A. — There was no school in the Centre that ever 
reached the low attendance of nine or six. 

Q. —Now, then, we understand so much. Now, how low an ebb 
did they reach? A. — I think, sir, in the primary department, we 
had as low as fifteen scholars in the Centre. 

Q. — And what was the number belonging to the school? A .— 
The number, I think, then, was about fifty-two on the register. 

Q. —The reduction was from fifty-two to fifteen? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — But, in the other schools, it was reduced in one of them 
to nine, and in the other to six? A. —In the Saundersville schools. 

Q .— How long did that continue? A. — I think that continued 

at least ten days. 


62 


Q. —And the diseases were scarlatina and diphtheria? A. — And 
measles. 

Q. —Do } T ou know in what proportion the three diseases prevailed? 
A. —I think that scarlatina was in the ascendant. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —What was the average attendance of this 
school, the whole number of which was fifty-two, at the time it was 
reduced to fifteen scholars ? A. — I would not wish to answer posi¬ 
tive^" ; but I would say probably forty. 

Q. — You spoke of the average attendance of the schools in Wil- 
kinsonville, near the river? A. — I did, sir. 

Q. —Why can 3*011 not state the average attendance of this school? 
A. — Because I am better acquainted with the other schools. Those 
are nearer my home, and I am there more frequently. 

Q.—What proportion of diphtheria did you get up in Grafton 
Centre? A. —I don’t recollect a case of diphtheria, except the two 
cases in the Redpath family, of children attending the Saundersville 
school. 

Q. — Those were the onl}* two cases in town? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — During what time? A. — During the whole }"ear. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Has there been any other time, except 
last April and May, when your schools have been in that condition? 
A .—The 3'ear previous, in the fall of the 3’ear, we had scarlatina; 
and last summer m3 r own girl was six weeks detained at home be¬ 
cause of malarial typhoid fever. 

Q. —That was 3 T our own girl? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —What does 3’our family consist of? A. — Now I have three 
daughters at home, ny wife, and myself. 

Q. — You have lived there seventeen 3’ears. Have 3’our daughters 
lived at home all the time? A. —Yes, sir, all the time. 

Q. — Saundersville, where there were two cases of diphtheria, I 
understand is on the banks of the river? A. —Yes, sir : nearly so. 

Q. (B3 r Mr. Goulding.) —How maiy" mills are there in Saun¬ 
dersville? A. — There is one, sir. 

Q. —And one in Sutton, besides? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) — Did you ever know of an3" cases of diph¬ 
theria there besides those two in the Redpath family since you have 
resided there? A. — Yes, sir, I have. 

Q.—How many years ago? A .—In Sutton, just over the line, 
there were two fatal cases about three years ago, in a straight line 
from the Redpath house across the river: I should say about a hun¬ 
dred feet from the river. 

Q. — Did you ever know of any case before those two three years 
ago? A. —Yes, sir, I have, and in the same locality. 

Q- —How long ago? A. —Probably a year, making four 3’ears. 


63 


Q . —Any before that? A. —Not to my knowledge. 

Q. —You have been entirety free from diphtheria for three } r ears? 
A. —Until last year. 

Q. — I sa}', between the two times you have been entirety free 
from diphtheria for about three j’ears all through that neighbor¬ 
hood. A. —Yes, sir. Typhoid fever last year was very prevalent 
along the river. 

Q . (lty the Chairman.)— Are the sanitary appliances of those 
houses equal to those of the other houses in the neighborhood ? A. — 
The house that the Redpath family lived in was near my own; and 
Mr. Piper, the landlord, is very careful in relation to those matters, 
whitewashing the house once a year. 

Q . (By Dr. Hodgkins.) —You spoke about typhoid fever: can 
you tell how much you have had of that? A. — About three hundred 
feet from the river, two cases in the Gould family, one proving fatal 
last November: the other, after a few months’ sickness, recovered. 
About six hundred feet from the same house, in the house of Mr. 
Weir, his son James was sick for six weeks with typhoid fever, 
attended b}' Dr. Wilmot. 

Q. —When was this last case? A. — Last October. It began in 
September, and reached nearly through October, as the doctor will 
testify by his notes. Two cases below Mr. Chase’s house, — one in 
the house of a Mr. Norcross : the person recovered. About the same 
time, a few feet from the same house, in a straight line near the 
river, in the house of Mr. Prentiss, his little boy died after two weeks’ 
sickness. Down towards the village, in the French house, there was 
a boy sick for two months : he recovered. In a house near the Sutton 
depot, and xery near the canal, there were two cases of typhoid fever 
last fall, lasting over six weeks : they recovered. 

Q .—The Sutton depot is near Wilkinsonville? A. — Yes, sir: 
near the banks of the canal, facing the Sutton manufacturing estab¬ 
lishment. 

Q — How far back can you remember cases of typhoid fever ? A. 

r 

_The cases that I have now mentioned are the cases that came 

under my cognizance last year. 

Q. —When, next previous to that, do you remember any cases of 
typhoid fever? A. — 1 knew, in the September before that, a Mr. 
Johnson had a daughter who was sick for about three months, 
attended by Dr. Wilmot. And also, last year, there was a case 

which I omitted to state, of William Boyce, a hired man of Mr. 

N. Chase, who is present, and who lives probably two hundred 

feet from the river. He was sick for at least six weeks, with typhoid 

fever or malaria, and was attended by Dr. Wilmot, who is present. 
That was last September. 


64 


Q .—Were there any cases between September of last year and 
October or November of the previous year? A. —I think, in a place 
they call Woodbury Village, two children attending the village school 
in Wilkinsonville were sick about six weeks. They belonged to my 
congregation. I saw them. 

Q. — What time of year was that? A. — In the fall, — in Septem¬ 
ber. 

Q. —Do you remember any cases between November of 1880 and 
August of 1881? A. —Not near the river, sir. I did in my town, 
but not near the river. 

Q. — Then you do not remember about any case of typhoid fever 
back of that? A. — Not the year before; but in other years Ire- 
member some cases. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —How mairy other cases of typhoid fever 
in the town do } T ou remember, not on the river? A. — I knew of the 
case of the wife of Mr. Andrew Corey, one of my elders, in Grafton 
Centre ; but not near the river. 

Q. — It is nothing unusual, I suppose, to have typhoid fever in all 
parts of the town ; that is, occasional cases ? A. — Occasional cases ; 
but those that I have enumerated were comparatively near the margin 
of the river. 

Q. — I understand that; but I ask 3^011 whether or not it is an un¬ 
usual thing to have cases of typhoid fever all over the town in Sep¬ 
tember? A. — Well, it is. We have more or less every 3’ear of 
typhoid over the whole countiy; but last 3’ear it was more marked, 
especially in those cases. 

Q. — That is, they were marked as you have stated? A. —Yes, 
sir. I would state, furthermore, in relation to the river, that I remem¬ 
ber, some five } T ears ago, the cows of two gentlemen near my place 
were driven past my door during the dry season to drink at the river. 
Now the3 r never go by there : they go to Champney’s Brook, about a 
quarter of a mile distant, and drink the stream that comes from the 
hill. And Mr. Piper’s dog (a very strange circumstance, but never¬ 
theless true) refuses to bathe in the river. He goes along with the 
cows, and washes himself in the stream. The horses of Mr. Blair, 
Mr. Piper, and Mr. Young (these men keep stables) never drink 
of the water of the river. They have wells in their barns. In former 
times, some ten or twelve } T ears ago, horses were known to drink the 
water of the river, but not for the last five or six 3-ears. 

Q. (By Senator Tirrell.) —Is there evidence of the presence of 
sewage water in the portion of the river that 3 T ou are speaking of ? 
A. — I think, from its color and weight and the odor, — those three 
facts establish in my mind 3^our question’s answer. 

Q. — What is its color ? and what else have you noticed about the 


65 


river? A. — I have noticed, especially in the spring season, when 
the water is high, it has a blackish appearance. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) —How would you describe the odor? A, 

— Well, probably it is better felt than described. 

Q •—It is a smell that can be felt? A. —Yes, sir, and almost 
cut sometimes. 

Q • —Are you familiar with the odor of sulphuretted hydrogen ? A. 

— I would not be willing to state that it was quite as noxious to 
one’s olfactories as that, especially when it is placed at them ; but 
the smell of the river is certainly, I would almost saj^, tangible. 

Q- — Have } 7 ou ever got the odor of sulphuretted hydrogen from 
the river? A .—Well, I never assigned it under that name. I 
would not like to distinguish it as having a likeness to that. But 
sometimes, in crossing the river b3 T the bridge, 3 T ou will be compelled 
to put your handkerchief over your nose, especially twice in the 3’ear, 

— in the spring and in the autumn. 

Q. (B3 t Mr. Flagg.) —We won’t use the term u sulphuretted hy¬ 
drogen ; ” but does, or does not, this odor that 3’ou speak of resemble 
that of a cesspool or priv3 T ? A. —Yes, sir: it is the odor of the 
excreta of our common privies. 


TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS WILMOT. 

Q. (B3 t Mr. Flagg.) —You live where? A. —In Farnumsville. 

Q. —In what town is Farnumsville situated? A. — Grafton. 

Q. —How far from the cit3 r of Worcester is Farnumsville? A. — 
About ten miles. I cannot state absolutely. 

Q. —You are a practising physician? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —How long have 3 7 ou been so? A. —Something over thirty 
3’ears. 

Q. — How long have 3 T ou lived in Farnumsville ? A. — Since Ma3^, 
1877 . 

Q. —From 3 T our experience in Farnumsville, what do 3 7 ou say as to 
the effect upon the general health of the people of the present pollu¬ 
tion of the river? A. —I should sa3 7 it was decidedly injurious. 

Q. —Your practice is not confined to Farnumsville, but extends, 
does it not, to Saundersville, Wilkinsonville, and other villages? 
A. — Saundersville, Wilkinsonville, Sutton, and down as far as 
Whitins’ and North Uxbridge. 

Q. —Now, will 3 T ou state to the Committee an3 T paiticular facts that 
3’ou have noticed in regard to the effect of the river upon health? 
A. —I have noticed, that at low water, when the shores were exposed 
to the rays of the sun, the emanations were still more disagreeable 
and cogent, and also that the river was of a disgusting appearance, 


1 


66 


black and nasty, and at all seasons of the year had a certain amount 
of smell. 

Q. — What sicknesses have you noticed during your practice there? 
A. — There is a prevailing sickness, which is scarcety worthy the full 
name of typhoid fever. It is more like an intermittent fever. There 
is no distinct medical name for it. It assumes all the appearance of 
a mild typhoid, without going into the extreme stage of it, purpura; 
without having the purple spots, which are sj’mptomatic of the true 
t} T phoid fever, but producing lassitude and debility for some five or 
six weeks. It goes under the common name in the country of “ slow 
fever.” 

Q. — Do }’ou ascribe the cause of this disease to the river, wholly 
or in part? A. —To a great extent, I think it is, sir, particularly at 
low water. There are two cases in particular that I can state to you. 
I refer to two sisters in the village of Rockdale. 

Q. — In what town is Rockdale? A. —I cannot sa} r . 

Q. —Is it not in Northbridge? A. — I think it is. In this vil¬ 
lage the pond was drained very low. It was drained down lower than 
the average of the ponds along the river, while the}* were making 
some repairs or alterations on the dam. That was none of my busi¬ 
ness, and I did not inquire what they were. The smell from the 
pond there was frightful. There is no modification of the word re¬ 
quired,— it was perfectly frightful. It was worse than the wards of 
a hospital. 

Q. —What did it smell like? A. —It smelt exactly like a water- 
closet, — “ sulphuretted hydrogen ” is the scientific term, — and con¬ 
tinued for some length of time. The repairs were extensive that 
they were making. 

Q. —When was that? A. — It was the latter part of the sum¬ 
mer, or beginning of the fall, of last year. And, to prove to the 
Committee that these two cases were particularly caused b} r the 
emanations from the river, they both were taken with the ordinary 
low fever, typhoid fever, so called, and continued for some little 
time, until one of them, the younger one, — one was twenty-four, and 
the other twenty-six, — developed distinct symptoms of malarial fever ; 
first shivering, then great heat, and then going off into perspiration, 
exactly like fever and ague. But it was only developed in one case. 
They were both in the same house, and both in the same room. And 
to prove that it was actually malarial fever, I will say that one was 
treated with quinine, and the disease yielded from day to day; but 
it had to be kept up a great while before it was finally conquered. 
The other one never had any symptoms of pure malaria. 

Q. —Have you any doubt that the condition of the river had to 
do with these two cases? A. —I have no doubt of it whatever. 


67 




Q • — Are there any other cases that 3'ou can name? A. — Not so 
distinct as that. There are eight or nine more in relation to which 
I would make the casual remark, — when a person asked me, 44 What 
is the cause of this fever?” — 44 I think it is living by that nasty, 
stinking river.” 

Q. —You have been there since 1877 ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q- — Has the condition of the river, as to its offensiveness, grown 
worse during that time? A .—As far as my observation has gone, 
it has gradually increased from year to year. I think last 3 T ear was 
the worst I have ever encountered at all. It was more of a nuisance 
than it ever was before. There was another case which I think 
strongly confirms m3' theor3 T on the subject. M3 r wife went with me 
when I visited these ver3 T patients. She did not go into the house, 
or near the patients. I hitched m3" horse a hundred feet from the 
river, and she remained there. She complained bitterty of the smell 
of this pond ; and, when she went home, she was taken with a sud¬ 
den attack of pure Asiatic cholera. I thought she would die before 
morning ; and she and I attributed it entirety to the smell from this 
pond. I have two daughters at home now, and I constantly take 
them with me when I visit m3 7 patients; and one of them positively 
refuses to go down that road in the summer-time. She sa3’s she 
won’t go, it smells so nasty. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —What do you mean by pure 44 Asiatic 
cholera”? A. — It was not subject to the collapse that the pure 
Asiatic cholera has. 

Q. —Was it Asiatic cholera? A. —Well, no, sir, I would not 
use the word 44 Asiatic.” It was a ver3 T severe case of cholera-mor¬ 
bus. But that is a most indefinite term, because 44 morbus” simpty 
means sick. 

Q .—Then, what 3-011 mean is, a very severe case of cholera-mor¬ 
bus? A. —Yes, sir : I think the most severe case I ever saw. The 
extremities were cold, and there was the contraction of the features 
that 3'ou see in cases of poisoning. 

Q. — Do you think that the fact that one of those cases was cuied 
b3 r quinine is sufficient proof of its malarial character? A. — No, 
sir : but, accompanied by the symptoms which appeared in that case, 
I do ; having every day, as regularly as the hours came round, a 
shivering fit come on, followed by heat; and then having it go of! 
and come on again at the same hour the next day. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —When you speak of that severe case of 
cholera having been caused by the river, do you suppose the effluvia 
from the river was sufficient to cause that, or was the system of the 
patient in such a condition as to make her peculiarly susceptible to 
such influences? A. —No, sir, I don’t think it can be attributed to 


68 




that; because she is a woman about my own age, and has been 
remarkabl} 7 healthy. I have never known her to be attacked during 
the thirty-six } T ears we have been married. 

Q .—Not peculiarly susceptible to attacks of that kind? A .— 
No, sir, not at all, but the reverse. That is the only case I can 
trace so directly to the effect of the river: but diarrhoea is very com¬ 
mon all the way through those manufacturing villages, along the line 
of the river; and those houses are all situated almost on the mar¬ 
gin, as near as they can be built with an} 7 degree of safety. 

Q. —You have a good man} 7 cases of cholera-morbus? A. —Yes, 
sir, mild cholera-morbus. “ Mild diarrhoea” would be the more cor¬ 
rect term. They are more frequent than they were two or three 
years ago, I think ; but that may be owing to my longer residence 
and more extensive practice. I do not want to attribute it altogether 
to the river. 

Q. (B3 7 Dr. Wilson.) —Were the abdominal symptoms very 
marked in those two cases of typhoid? A. — Yes, sir, they were 
very marked ; but the} 7 were not so severe as to produce purpurai , 
— the purple marks. 

Q. — Is the character of the cholera-morbus more severe now than 
three or four years ago? A. —No, sir: I don’t think there is any 
ver} 7 marked difference in the degree of severity. 

Q. — About the same last year as three years ago? A. — As near 
as I can judge or remember, I should suppose it was. I have not 
observed any thing to cause any alarm ; nothing but simple diarrhoea, 
that would yield to ordinary treatment. 

Q. — Have you ever seen any other case of intermittent fever? 
A. — Not since I have been in Massachusetts. 

Q. — Have you ever known of any other case ? A. —Not of my 

own knowledge. I have not even heard any one speak of it. In 

fact, I do not think that intermittent fever ever prevailed here. 

% 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Those two cases to which you referred 
were at Rockdale? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —I don’t quite understand how you prove that the disease was 
caused by the river, when one had one set of symptoms, and the 
other had another set. A. — I will tell you how I would account for 
that, I think: that one was more susceptible to an attack of malarial 
fever than the other, and the malaria which produced the attack arose 
from the fact that a very large surface of mud w r as uncovered. I 
believe it is generally understood and known by the medical profes¬ 
sion, that malarial poison arises from the deposition of vegetable 
matter, and that typhoid arises from the deposition of animal matter. 


69 


That is making a broad assertion, not saying that it is absolutely so 
in every case. I think in one case the patient was susceptible to 
the inception of the fever; in the other, she was not. 

Q- — The water was lowered a good deal? A .— The pond was 
absolutely empty. You could cross it. The pond was drawn down 
so as to enable them to put in a new bulkhead. 

Q‘ How large was the pond? A. — I cannot form any idea of 
that. It stretches over the country, I should think, nearly three- 
quarters of a mile, with three or four little islands in it, covered with 
the long grasses that grow in ponds. 

Q -—How long did it remain drawn down? A .—I cannot say 
positively. I should say three months. It was a long time, I know. 

Q. — There was no other case of intermittent fever except this? 
A. —Not an}’. 

Q • — Any other people live near the pond? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q • — Does your practice extend into other parts of the towns ex¬ 
cept along the river? A. —Not very widely. I go down to Grafton 
Centre occasionally. 

Q • — Your practice, I suppose, has been gradually increasing since 
you went there? A. — Yes, sir, it has gradually increased. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Have you had any cases of diphtheria 
about the river there? A. — Three cases that I call distinct cases 
of diphtheria. 

Q. — Where were those, and when ? A. — They were very widely 
scattered. One, I think, was in a place called Ferry Street, in 
Farnumsville. 

Q .—Near the river? A. —Yes, sir. It is situated in what is 
called Fisherville. The river, in a straight line, is about three hun¬ 
dred yards distant. 

Q. — When was that? A. —That was two or three years ago. 

Q. — Now, the next case? A .—The next case was down in 
Riverdale, in a frame-house. I don’t think the river had any thing 
to do with it. I attributed that entirely to a filthy cesspool that I 
detected near the house. There were two or three cases in the 
house. One died, and the others recovered. There was another case 
between Rockdale and Riverdale. 

Q .—Near the river? A. — Yes, sir: the house is quite close to 
the river. 

Q. — When was that? A. —Last summer. 

Q. — Do you think either of these three cases is attributable to the 
river? A. —I can’t say that I do. I can’t say that those three 
cases were directly attributable to the river. 

Q .—I understand those were three locations: there were more 
than three cases? A. — Yes, sir : there wee five cases altogether. 


70 


Q. —Do you remember any other case, during the last five years, 
of diphtheria? A. — No, sir. I have rather peculiar notions about 
that thing. I don’t think that one case in fifty of what is called 
diphtheria is diphtheria at all. There have been a great man}’ sore 
throats which people are very apt to call diphtheretic sore throats, 
and many other little pet names they give to it, which are no more 
appropriate than that. 

Q. — Where did you practise before you went to Grafton ? A. — 
I practised twenty years in Nova Scotia, and ten years in London. 

Q. —From your experience, do you think diphtheria and typhoid 
prevail in this locality more than the average? A. —Yes, sir : more 
than in any locality I have been in for a number of years. But 
then, again, that ought not to weigh very much; because, where I 
lived, I could sit in my office and throw the stump of a cigar into 
the sea. 

Q. — I understand there were only five cases in five years that you 
remember? A. — That I remember. 

Q. —How many of those do you attribute to the river, and how 
many to other causes? A. —I have told you distinctly that I do not 
attribute any of them to the river, directly, although I believe that 
the polluted state of the atmosphere considerably retarded their 
recovery. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — I want to know whether, wdien you say 
“ not directly,” you mean to say that you attribute those cases of 
diphtheria to the river at all? A. —No, sir: you do not quite 
understand me. What I mean is this: that the cases of diphtheria 
occurred, — cause unknown ; but I think it probable that recovery was 
retarded by the polluted state of the atmosphere that they were 
daily breathing. Just exactly as when a sick person is taken out 
of a little, close room, where he is half-stifled to death, and put into 
a good, airy room, it will do him more good than half a dozen 
doctors. 

q —What is the population of the towns in which you practise? 
A. — I think the town of Grafton contains about twenty-five hun¬ 
dred ; but I cannot be sure about that. The town of Northbridge 
contains a larger number than that; but around this part I am speak¬ 
ing of, they are very thinly scattered. 

Q. — Are these the only cases that have occurred in those neigh¬ 
borhoods? A. —Those are the only cases of diphtheria and typhoid 
fever; but common sore throat, putrid sore throat, and all those 
things, are very prevalent. I have had forty or fifty or a hundred 
cases a year. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You speak of only five cases. I under¬ 
stand you to say that you hesitate to call every case to which you are 


71 


summoned, diphtheria, although it may be popularly so termed ? A. — 
No, sir : I call a case diphtheria very reluctantly indeed. 

Q •—When you speak of five cases, what do you mean? A .—I 
mean five distinct cases of what, upon my oath, I would say were dis¬ 
tinct cases of diphtheritis. I was very much surprised to find those, 
I can assure you. It was more than I had seen for a great many 
years. 

Q . (By Dr. Harris.) — Do 3*011 think 3'ou discover that breathing 
the air from the river has a tendency to increase diseases of the 
throat? A. — Yes, sir, I think I do. 

Q •—Do you believe there is sulphuretted hydrogen in the atmos¬ 
phere? A. —To a great extent, it is, near the river ; but, when you 
get further away from it, it is so attenuated that you do not smell it. 

Q . — What is the effect of that sulphuretted li3 T drogen upon the 
mucous membrane of the throat? A. — It causes irritation. 

TESTIMONY OF NEHEMIAH CHASE. 

Q. (B}? 1 Mr. Flagg.) —Where do j*ou live? A. —In Wilkinson- 
ville, in the town of Sutton, by the side of Blackstone River. 

Q. — How long have you lived there? A. —Nearly twent} 7 3 r ears. 

Q. —Your business is that of a farmer? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—How near to the river is your house? A. — My house and 
barn are about three hundred feet from the river. 

Q. —How long did 3 T ou sa3’ 3 T ou had been familiar with the.river? 
A. —I have lived by the side of the river nearly sixty 3mars. 

Q. —Tell what the river was fifteen years ago, — what it was used 
for. Did cattle drink out of it? A. — Cattle used to drink the 
water fifteen 3 T ears ago, and we used to get fish out of the river fif¬ 
teen 3’ears ago. 

Q. — Did you use to bathe in it? A. —We did. 

Q. — Do 3 r ou now? A. — We do not. I do not see any one bath¬ 
ing in it. 

Q .—Why do 3 T ou not use it ? A .—Because it is not considered 
a suitable place. The water is not fit: it is too dirt3 T . 

Q .—The place has nothing to do with it? A. —No, sir, the 
place has nothing to do with it: it is the water. 

Q .—Do 3 T ou notice the water, as to its odor and color? A. —I 
notice, that, especially after a big rain, it has a sort of roily, 3’ellow 
color ; and, in crossing the bridge, I notice the odor more particularly 
than I do back on the land,—the bridge where we cross the Black- 
stone. 

Q. — What is the color of the water? A. •—Sort of darkish color, 
a little inclined to yellow at times. 



Q. —About the cattle, do the} T now drink the water of the river? 
Tell 3’our experience with 3’our cattle. A. — No, sir: it is very sel¬ 
dom that cattle or horses drink any water out of the Blackstone 
River now. 

Q. (Ety a member of the Committee.) —Is it because cattle refuse 
to drink it, or because they are not taken there to drink it? A. — 
Two years ago I had no place to water my oxen except the Black- 
stone River ; and tlm' would not drink onl3 T once in two da3 T s at the 
river. Then I dug a well at m3' barn, where I found water; and there 
the3' would drink twice a da3 r , when from the Blackstone they would 
only drink once in two da3’s. 

Q. (B3^ Mr. Flagg.) — When the3 T could not get an3 7 other water, 
tliey would drink once in two days from the Blackstone? A. — Only 
once in two da3's they 'would drink water out of the river. 

Q. —Then you dug a well, and the3 T would drink twice ada3 T ? 
A. —Yes, sir: they would drink, as cattle usuall3 T do, twice a day. 

Q. —About fish: tell us what fish were formerly there, and what 
kinds you see now. A. —We used to catch fish years ago in the 
spring of the 3 T ear; but now there are no fish to speak of, but there 
are plenty of water-snakes. 

Q. — Have 3 t ou noticed an3 T cases of t3'phoid fever or malaria in 
the neighborhood? A. — I had a case in my house last October. 

Q. — Who was it? A. — It was my hired man. 

Q. — Did he recover? A. — He did. 

Q. — Was the condition of the river assigned as the cause of his 
sickness, or thought to be so? A. — It was thought to be so. 

Q. — Do you know of any other cases? A. —There were. 

Q. —Will you mention the others, or one other? A. — There was 
a bo3', tw r elve 3'ears old, in the second house across the river, that 
died. Others were sick there. 

Q. — When was that? A. —That was last fall. 

Q. (B3^ Mr. Goulding.)—A re these the same cases that Mr. 
Smith was telling about? A. — I think he spoke of one of the 
cases. 

Q. — He spoke of your hired man? A. —Yes, sir : that is one of 
the cases spoken of. 

Q. — Do you know of any cases that Mr. Smith did not speak of, 
and that Dr. Wilmot did not speak of? A. — I don’t recollect as 
Dr. Wilmot spoke of this case at my house: I don’t know but he 
might. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.)— I would like to ask Mr. Chase whether 
this bad condition of things in regard to the smell from the river and 
the appearance of the water has improved or has grown worse during 
the last three or four years? A. — I should not say that it had im¬ 
proved ; I should sa3 r that it had increased. 


T3 


Q . (By 7 Mr. Smith.)— You spoke of watering your cattle at the 
Blackstone River. In former years, was it the practice of farmers 
living upon the borders of that stream to water their cattle in the 
river? Did they use it for that purpose to an } 7 extent? A .—They 
did. 

Q • —Now y 7 ou say 7 they cannot use it for that purpose? A. —No, 
sir: the}" do not even pretend to water horses in the Blackstone now. 
It w 7 as formerly a general watering-place. There was many a farmer 
on the stream that had no other water than the Blackstone River. 

Q •—About when did they stop watering cattle there? A. — It 
has been used for that purpose but very little for the last five years, I 
should say 7 . 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What is your business? A. —Farm¬ 
ing. 

Q. — You have always lived at this same place? A. — Yes, sir: 
almost always. 

Q. —What does your family consist of? A. —My family 7 at home 
is a housekeeper, hired man, and mother. 

Q. — How long has your mother lived there? A. — She has lived 
there since the first of last October. 

Q. —Where did she live before? A. — In the next house above. 

Q. — Is that near by? A. —That is near by 7 : j*es, sir. 

Q. — How long did she live there ? A. — Sixty-seven years. 

Q. — How old is she now? A. —In her ninet3 r -first year. 

Q. —Pretty good health for an old lady 7 ? A. — Not very 7 good : 
no, sir. 

Q. —Not very robust? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — So as to be about the house ? A. — Some days. 

Q. — Did 3’our father formerly" live there ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —He is dead now? A. — Yes, sir: he has been dead twenty- 
two 3 r ears. 

Q. — What age did he die at ? A. — Sixty-eight. 

Q .—Have you ever had any children? A. — I have one son in 
Wilkinsonville. 

Q. —How long has your wife been dead? A. —My last wife died 
the thirteenth of last May. 

Q. —You have only 7 one son? A. —That is all. 

Q. — What is his age ? A. — Thirty-six. 

Q. —Where did this hired man who was sick last y 7 ear come from? 
A. — Came from Ireland. 

Q. —When did he come? A. — He came to my place the 28 th of 
June. 

Q. — Had he come directly from Ireland, or very recently ? A. — 
He came to New York, and stopped there a few days. 


74 


Q. — Within a few weeks he had come from Ireland? A .—Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — He came from Ireland to this country, and came to work on 
your farm, and was taken with this fever? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — And was sick how long? A. —I think he was confined to 
his bed about four weeks. 

Q. — Has he fully recovered now? A. — I think so : yes, sir. 

Q. —Does he still work for you? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —When was he taken sick? You say he 
came to your place in June? A. — He came to my place in June. 

Q. — When was he taken sick ? A. — About the last of Septem¬ 
ber or first of October : I can’t tell you the date exactly. 


TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN L. EWELL. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — You are a minister of the gospel? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —How long have you lived there? A. — It will be four years 
next month. 

Q. — During that time you have seen the Blackstone River ? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Q. — Smelt it? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —This is a matter of common complaint in your congregation? 
A. — Yes, sir: I hear of it constantly. Before I came there, when 
I was about deciding to come, I heard of the trouble with the river, 
and made special inquiries about it; and, the more I inquired about 
it, the more that statement was confirmed. 

Q. —What statement? A. — The statement that the river smelt 
bad was one that was made to me ; and the inference was, that the 
village was not altogether health}’. I thought it would be pleasant 
to live by the river, as I had formerly lived by a river, and had 
depended upon it for recreation in fishing, bathing, and rowing; but 
I found myself cut off from all those things. 

Q. —From your familiarity with it, you would not feel like bathing 
in or boating on that river? A. —No, sir: I should not think it 
health}’ to row on the river. 

Q. —Will you describe in your own words what you have noticed 
about the river? A. —The dark color of the water, the thickness 
of it, and the odor. I have frequent occasion to pass the bridge 
over the river, near the Providence Station, and also somewhat 
frequently the bridge which is above Burling Mills ; and at each of 
them I have noticed the strong odor of the water and the dark color, 
uniformly, I think I may say, in crossing those bridges. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) — Did you intend the Committee to under- 


75 


stand that }’ou hesitated somewhat about going there in consequence 
of what you had heard? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q . (B3' Mr. Flagg.) — 111 going to and from the cemeteiy, is the 
odor from the river noticeable? A. — Very noticeable, sir. 

Q . — Will 3'ou describe how the cemetery is situated as to the 
river, — whether or no it is almost surrounded bj T the river, a sort of 
peninsula? A. — A part of it is a peninsula. 

Q. — Among your parishioners this has been a matter of talk, yon 
say. Have any thought of going away on that account, who have 
talked with } t ou ? A. — I understand that one family has moved 
aw a}’, and that that was a consideration with them. Another family 
that I have in mind, who are excellent people, connected with our 
church, and we were very much afraid that w r e should lose them, 
were troubled about the river. 

Q. — Who was this? A .—This was Mr. Whitworth. He men¬ 
tioned this incident to me, that, when he first came to Millbury, it 
was convenient for him to row to and from the sash and blind shop: 
but the odor of the water that was stirred up by the oars became 
very offensive ; and, as nearly as he could judge, he had strong symp¬ 
toms of typhoid fever. He was obliged to leave his work, I think; 
and he gave up rowing upon the river. And I know (and I pre¬ 
sume it may have been brought out here, because it is a matter 
known to eveiy one in Millbury), that, when the sash and blind shop 
was burned, all the people of Millbury, or a large number of them, 
did what the} r could to induce the proprietor to rebuild; and the 
strongest objection that he urged was the polluted condition of the 
w T ater. 

Q . — Did he urge that to you? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—But you talked him over, and he is going to stay? A.— 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — When was the fire? A. — It was, I should say, in the month 
of October, 1881 : it may have been later than that. 

Q. — In your opinion, from your familiarity with your parishioners, 
and the other people of Millbury, do you think that considerations 
of health, or considerations of loss of water-power, are the matters 
which cause this agitation? Is it either one alone? A. — I suppose 
both, sir ; but, in the minds of the people of the town, it seems to me 
.that the great consideration is the one of health. 

Q . (By the Chairman.) — Do you mean that is what ought to be, 
or do you think it is? A. — I think it ought to be, and I think it is. 

Q . — That is, from your conversation with them? A. —Yes, sir. 
At the same time, one can see how the river is filling up, and the 
injury to the water-power. 

Q . (By Mr. Morse.) — And that injury to the water-power means, 


76 


not simply the loss of power, I take it, but the loss of water that is 
suitable for manufacturing purposes : the water is used for other pur¬ 
poses than for power? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —And the health of the operatives in the factory also is a 
matter of consequence to the manufacturers as well as to themselves ? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson). — Were your fears realized at all in regard 
to coming to Millbuiy? Did you suffer in bod} T ? A. —Our chil¬ 
dren have suffered more than before, decidedly, from throat-diseases; 
and we have had a good many family councils about the matter. We 
try to take all the pains we can as to food, air, and health generally ; 
and still they have throat-diseases more than the}’ did before. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Where is 3 T our church situated, Mr. 
Ewell? A. — It is in the village nearest Worcester, sir. The Bap¬ 
tist church and ours stand directi } 7 opposite each other. 

Q. —That is in Armor } 7 Village, in Millbuiy? A. —Armory Vil¬ 
lage, I think, is the distinguishing name. 

Q. — How near to the river? A. — I am not a good judge of dis¬ 
tances : possibly it is an eighth of a mile from the river to the 
churches. 

Q. — IIow near to the river do } 7 ou live? A. —About the same 
distance. 

Q. — An eighth of a mile? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — In what direction? A. —The general direction would be 
east from the river. 

Q . — What does } 7 our famil } 7 consist of ? A. — Wife and four lit¬ 
tle children. 

Q . — How old are your children ? A. — The eldest is eight and a 
half, and the youngest is a } r ear old. 

Q. — Had a physician considerably in your family? A. —No, 
sir ; but very little. 

Q. — Very little occasion to call a doctor? A. — No, sir : I think 
that my wife is a pretty good nurse, and perhaps we are not quite as 
read } 7 to call in a physician as some would be. 

Q. —What was this family’s name which moved away? A. —The 
family’s name was Johnson. 

Q. — Where did they live? A. —They lived in what is called 
Blackstone Street. 

Q. — How near to the river? A. — Well, sir, perhaps one-six¬ 
teenth of a mile : it was quite near the river. 

Q . —What was Mr. Johnson’s business? A. —He worked in the 
sash and blind shop. 


Q. — Where did he go to? A. — To Fitchburg. 

Q —When did he move? A. — I think, sir, some time last fall. 

Q !. — What was Mr. Johnson’s first name? A. — I don’t recall it. 

Q. — But he formerly worked for Mr. Morse in the sash and blind 
factory ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—Did he move away about the time the factory was burned? 
A. — I think he did, sir. 

Q. —IIow long before? A. — My impression is, that it was at the 
beginning of the fall. I cannot give a definite statement as to that. 

Q. — The fire was in October, was it not? A. — In October or 
November. 

Q. —And one of the reasons that he assigned to you was the river? 
A. — He did not assign that to me, as I recall; that is, I cannot 
make a positive statement to that effect: but I have understood that 
that was one of the reasons. 

Q .—Then you never heard him assign any such reason, but 3’ou 
understood so ? A. — I should not dare to sa} T that he stated it to 

me. 

Q .—Did he give any reason to you for going? A. — I don’t 
recall any. I think most likely that he mentioned that to me ; and 
yet I do not recall just what he said to me: but I have understood 
that that was one of the reasons. 

TESTIMONY OF ESEK SAUNDERS. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Saundersville ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — That is in the town of Grafton? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you lived there? A. — Since 1835 . 

Q. — And during that time you have been interested in business 
there? A.—Yes, sir: manufacturing and building up the village 
there. I was engaged in the cotton manufacture up to last May. I 
sold out my business there then. 

Q. — You have seen that village, then, grow up from a very small 
place to its present size? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How many people are employed in the mill? A. — About 

two hundred. 

Q. _Will you go back fifteen 3~ears, and tell the Committee what 

was the state of the river then, as to the quality of the water? A. — 
Fifteen years ago we used the water for any purpose that we wanted. 
We could drink it, we could use it in our boilers, and for any thing 
that we required water about the manufacture ; but it has been pol¬ 
luted, and growing worse ever since the sewage of Worcester was 
first turned into the Blackstone River. 

Q. — It is not now used for bathing? A. — No. 


78 


Q. — Nor for domestic purposes? A. — No : nothing but motive- 
power. Cattle won’t drink it; we cannot use it in our boilers; we 
cannot bathe in it; and we cannot use it for any thing but motive- 
power. 

Q. —Coming now to boilers, do you consider the water in the 
river, as it is at present, fit to use for the purpose of making steam? 
A. — Oh, no ! 

Q. — For the purpose of making sizing? A. — No : we can’t use 
it at all for that. 

Q. — What is the condition of the water that is in the tanks in the 
mill? A. — The water in the tanks in our mill we take from springs 
separate from the river. Don’t use any of it. 

Q. — Why? A. — Because the river-water is polluted so. We 
used to use it for that purpose, but we have not for some time. We 
had some bath-houses there for people to bathe in : we took them out 
ten years ago. 

Q .— You took them out for the same reason? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Going into your flumes, what do you notice about them? A. 
— Well, there is a thick sediment that adheres to the sides and bot¬ 
tom of the flumes, and all the irons that go across to support them. 

Q. — Is that sediment offensive? A .—It is veiy offensive to go 
into a wheel-pit now. It used to be a part of the machinist’s duty to 
go into the wheel-pits often ; but now it is a separate job. You have 
to furnish him things for it, and it is very offensive. 

Q .—Your house is how far from the river? A. —My house is 
probably eight hundred feet from the river, on a rise about sistj’ feet 
above the river. 

Q .—Do 3’ou notice the odors from the river? A .—When the 
river is low, and the wind is in the direction to bring the odor from 
the river, it is very strong in the yard back of the house. 

Q. — Is there any doubt about what that odor is? A. —Not at 
all: you can trace it all the way to Worcester. 

Q. —When the water in the river is low, how great a part of that 
which flows in the river goes through your flumes? A. — Well, it all 
goes through. When the river is low, we use it all. 

Q. —The flumes are in the basement of the mill? A. — The 
flumes are in the basement of the mill. There was an addition 
built on to the mill of ninety feet, and the water-wheels are in that 
addition. It is closed up ; and when we go in there in the morning, 
and there has been no ventilation, it is very offensive : and we can¬ 
not keep it open in the winter season, because our steam-pipes run 
through there, and the cold would freeze them. It is very offensive 
where the water comes in and is confined, as it is in the wheel-pit, 
over night. 


79 


Q • — How great a portion of the year is the water in the river so 
low that the greater part of it goes through your flumes ? A. — 
When the mill is running, from nine to ten months a year. 

Q .—In your opinion, what is the effect of the pollution of the 
river upon the health of your operatives? A. — Well, I don’t think 
their health is as good as it used to be. I think the}' lose more time, 
and I think it injures their health. Our mill faces to the north, 
towards the pond. In the afternoon, particularly in the weaving- 
room where they use more or less steam in the summer season, if 
the}* could raise the windows, and let a gentle breeze come in, it 
would be very refreshing; but now when it comes in, with the state 
of the river, it is very offensive, and they have to close the windows, 
on the windward side, at any rate. 

Q. — From your familiarity with the people in Saundersville and 
in the other villages along the Blackstone River, do you think that 
considerations of health serve to keep this agitation going? A. — I 
don’t think the health of the people is as good as it formerly was, 
particularly those that live in houses very near the river. They have 
not had any prevailing sickness there more than throat-diseases, and 
the common diseases that come ; but there are a good many that are 
puny, and that are running down with consumption, who were from 
healthy parents. 

Q. — Are not the people of the valley generally fearful of the 
effects of this pollution upon their health? A. —Yes : that is talked 
over with us all. 

Q. —Do you think it has had any effect upon your health? A. — 
Yes : for two years I was quite unwell. I attributed a good deal of 
it to the work I used to do about the mill in the morning, before 
breakfast, raking out the rack, at the time the dead fish and such 
stuff was floated down in there. For the last year I have not had 
any thing to do with it. It is very offensive when dead fish and all 
this stuff is drawn under the gates and on to the rack. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —What is your age, Mr. Saunders? A . 
— I am in my eighty-second year; born in 1800 . 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —Is your wheel-house situated underneath 
your factory? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Does the odor from the wheel-house penetrate the rooms 
above, so as to be perceptible? A. — No, it don’t penetrate above ; 
it is closed up : it would if there was any place open. It is on a level 
with the floor of the main mill and of the addition that has been put 
on. The main building is one hundred and seventy-five feet by fifty- 
one feet; the addition is ninety-four by thirty-eight. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Have you noticed any effect upon the wells 
in the village? A. — Yes, sir. I have a well down near the river 


80 


which was dug thirty years ago, from which I used to get a good sup¬ 
ply of good water; but the water from the river has got into it, and 
destroyed the well. I took out the first pump, and put in a drive- 
pump, and drove it down further. That answered for a little while ; 
but it has come in again now, so that it is entirely useless. 

Q. — Come in through the soil, do I understand you? A. — Come 
in through the soil. 

Q. — What is the nature of the soil? A. —Gravel. When the 
well was first dug, there appeared to be a spring from the bank across 
the road: it did not come from the river, and I did not suppose it 
would be affected by the river. Some of the other wells in the village 
are affected by the river-water, I suppose. 

Q. —You have taken care of } T our village, so as to have as good 
health there as possible, I am told? A. — Yes, sir: I have built 
it all up from four houses to the size it is now, and looked after all 
the arrangements for drainage, water-closets, and every thing. 

Q. —How large a village is Saundersville in population now? 
A. —There are about six hundred people there now. 

Mr. Flagg. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Saunders has been one of the 
prominent men in the valley for a number of years, and is a man 
from whom the Committee could get valuable information, if there 
is any point they would like to inquire about. 

Q . (By Dr. Wilson.)— Do you know any thing about any cases 
of diphtheria or typhoid fever among your help or among your neigh¬ 
bors lately? A. — I cannot distinguish an}\ There has been but 
very little unusual sickness there : I don’t think there has been any 
prevailing sickness. 

Q. (By the Chairman.)— As I understand, you have not any 
thing very definite to sa} r about sickness, except, in a general way, 
that in 3’our opinion the health of the people is not as good as it used 
to be, but you do not desire to state that you are in any danger of an 
epidemic? A. — No, sir. I notice by our pay-roll, and notice by 
the appearance of the people, that there is more loss of time now 
than there used to be, and people are not as active as they were. 

Q. — What makes you attribute the loss of time to sickness? A. 
— Well, I attribute the loss of time to poor health : I don’t think 
you could trace it to dissipation, and I don’t think the work is harder 
than it used to be. We work shorter hours now. When I first came 
to the business, we worked twelve hours and over; and now the work 
is done in ten, and there is every arrangement made for the health 
of the operatives. You look after us pretty close here. We have to 
have tenements; we have to have every thing as convenient for our 
help as we possibly can. We have to have escapes for them to get 
out of the mill in case of fire ; we have to box all our machinery; we 


81 


can’t work a child only so long; we have to do all these things; and 
then they look into our tenements to see if they are all right. But 
here is a point that we cannot alter, and we come to j r ou for that. 
Every thing else they come to us, and say we must do so and so ; and 
these young men are sent up from here, and their orders are absolute. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Is it 3’our opinion that the legislation in 
favor of the operatives has been more than offset by the Legislature 
permitting Worcester by the Act of 1867 to pollute the river? A. — 
If they went there with the authority they usually come with, they 
would command Worcester to stop that sewage right off. They 
come to us, and say, “Take that child out.” The tenements where 
we used to have two families, we cannot have but one in now. We 
are under very strict rules from the Legislature. It all emanates 
from this hill, and we have to obey it. 

Q. (B} r Mr. Smith.) —Don’t 3^011 think these regulations tend to 
benefit the health of 3 T our village? A. —What regulations? 

Q .—I mean the regulations from this hill. Don’t the3 T tend to 
protect and prolong the lives of the people of 3’our village, on the 
whole? A. — I don’t know as the3’ realty do ; because we have been 
a little famity concern, and have taken care of ourselves. We have 
had no constables ; we have had no law3'ers. We usually have a man 
come and preach to us on Sunda3^s, and have established a little 
church there. 

Q. (B3' the Chairman.) —You obey the rules the State la3 r s down 
to prevent people from being injured b3 T their work? A. — Yes, sir : 
we have been a law-abiding people all through, and m3 r associates up 
and down the river there — I am familiar with them — I think co¬ 
operate with us. I think there is no law that has been imposed about 
labor, or the hours of attendance on school, or any thing, that has 
been intentionalty violated on the Blackstone Elver. There may 
have been cases where there has been some mistake about it, and 
somebod3 T has been fined ; but it is not a general thing. 

Q. —But 3’ou think that men do not live an3 r longer in consequence 
of it? A. —No, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —I would like to ask whether you take spe¬ 
cial pains in regard to the drainage and cleanliness of 3 T our village ? 
A. —Yes, sir: we have always done so. All the backhouses and 
every thing are fitted so that they can be replenished with loam or 
ashes, or some cleansing thing, after they are cleared out in the 
spring, or two or three times a year if they want to, until the fall. 
And there is evety arrangement made in the mill for hot and cold 
water for every purpose ; and the water-closets are looked to, and 
all the sink-drains, and every thing is kept clean. It has always 
been under my supervision. 


Q. — Is the drainage of j’our factory poured into the river? A. — 
Not at all; not a particle of any thing of that kind ; never, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —I wish to ask 3*011 if, within your 
knowledge, the people of your village feel that the3* are living in air 
that should be made purer for them? A. —Yes, sir, decidedly so. 
It is the universal feeling. The house was ver3' desirable for opera¬ 
tives to live in, because it was near the mill. Now it is hard work to 
get the same class of people to live in it: the3 T don’t like the scent 
from the river. 

Q. (B3 r Dr. Hodgkins.) —Have 3*ou noticed that 3 r our people 
complain largely of sore throats? A. —That has been a general 
complaint: a good man3 r of them go with mufflers. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (B3 7 Mr. Goulding.) —You have had personal supervision of 
3'our business up to the present time? A. — Up to last Ma3*. I 
sold out m3 r interest in the manufactory then. I have a good deal 
of real estate there, and cany on a farm. I attended personally to 
the business of the mill all the time from 1835 . 

Q. —Have you been in prett3 r good health 3*011 rself ? A. —Yes, 
sir, I have enjo3 r ed very good health, until about five 3*ears ago I 
had a sickness. 

Q. — What was that? A. —I had a violent attack of a sort of 
fever, — sore throat. 

Q. —What time of the 3*ear was that? A. — In the fall. 

Q. — How long were 3 T ou sick ? A. — Two months, five 3*ears ago ; 
and I was attacked two 3*ears ago this last fall. I took cold, and was 
hauled up nearly the whole winter. Last winter I had a little attack 
of it. 

Q. —You had a cold this last time, and it was in the winter? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Q. —With the exceptions you have mentioned, you have been well 
always? A. — Always. 

Q. — You have a family? A. —Yes. 

Q. — Mrs. Saunders living? A. — My first family is all gone. 
When I went to Grafton, I had a wife and three daughters; but Mrs. 
Saunders died, and the three daughters died. 

Q. — How long ago did Mrs. Saunders die? A. —She died in 
1864 . 

Q.— Did your daughters die at home? A. — One died at home 
two years ago. They were all married, and lived at Worcester. I 
was married in 1866 to m3 7 present wife. She is living, and well. 

Q. — She is a younger person than yourself ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Had this daughter that died at home lived at home ? A. _ 


83 


She had been at home since the death of her husband : her husband 
died some four years before she did. 

Q • — What did she die of ? A. — She died of pneumonia ; took 
a violent cold. 

Q. — How is the sink-drainage through the village disposed of? 
A. — That is carried off into cisterns. There are casks sunk into 
the ground, without the lower head. The water runs into the ground, 
and they are cleaned out two or three times a year. 

Q . —That is the custom all through the village? A. — All through 
the village. 

Q- — And the privies? A. —They are all outside of the houses, 
with vaults put in, and covered over on the back side, and the con¬ 
tents are carried off in the spring or fall: and, when they are cleared 
out in the spring, there is loam or coal-ashes from the mill tipped up 
there ; and at different times scavengers go through the village, and 
put in these materials. 

Q. —You never have had any sewers built there? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —Your surface-water in the streets, I suppose, runs into the 
river eventually ? A. —That runs into the river. We have got a 
great many under-drains that carry off the water. It is a flat place, 
along by the business places ; and there is a great deal of under¬ 
drainage that carries the water down to the river from there. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You are familiar with the towns just above 
Worcester, and the brooks forming the Blackstone, — with Millbury, 
Sutton, Grafton, Northbridge, Uxbridge, and Blackstone, being all the 
towns in this State on the Blackstone? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Have any of them any town sj’stem of sewerage? A. —No, 
sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —They all have a right to lay sewers, 
when they have a mind to, under the general statute of 1869 ? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Is there any emptying of sewage into the 
Blackstone by a system of sewerage, by any town or city on the 
Blackstone, in this State, outside of the city of Worcester? A. — 
I don’t know of any. 

Q. (By Dr. Ingalls.) — What causes this pollution in your river? 
A. —The sewage of Worcester. 

Q. — Entirely, do you think? A. — I don’t think it is entirely: 
I think there are other causes, but I think that is the greatest 
cause. 

Q. — What proportion should you judge came from the sewerage 
of the city of Worcester, in comparison with the surface drainage 
of these other towns, and the pollutions that come from the manu¬ 
factories ? A. — That would be guesswork with me. I have not 


84 


gone into an} T mathematical calculation about it; but judging from 
the condition of the river after the sewage was put into the river, 
and what it was before, I should think that seven-eighths of it came 
from the sewage of Worcester. I talked with Mr. Blake about the 
time he was putting it in, and he admitted that it would be very 
offensive in the river, but said it would never come to Millbury: it 
would be utilized for some other purpose. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Something was said about the forma¬ 
tion of islands in the river, in a way to indicate that it was caused 
by sewage. Do you think it is caused altogether by the sewage of 
Worcester? A. — I think a great deal of it is caused by the sewage 
of Worcester. It creates weeds, — what we call “ pickerel weed,” — 
which grows there luxuriantly: it will grow up so that it will cover 
over a space of three or four feet sometimes ; and, as the water rises 
and falls, it rises up, washes down, and then, when it goes on to the 
banks, it creates a wild weed that grows up. The ponds are filling 
up very fast. We have had to clear out our pond. We have a small 
pond, and we have had to clear it out, and it takes a good deal of 
time to get that clear ; and the ponds are filling up now. Mr. Morse’s 
pond is filling up very fast, and the ponds below. What we call Pleas¬ 
ant Falls Pond, which is between Millbury and the Sutton Manufac¬ 
turing Compan}’, has filled up two or three rods from the shore. In 
a few } r ears I do not see why it is not going to fill the entire river up, 
unless it is cleared out. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —You speak about having cleared out your 
own pond : what was the character of the material which you took 
from your pond? was it sewage matter? A. — It was mixed with 
sewage matter, and with weeds, mud, etc. It was very offensive, 
and I carried it away; and, after letting it dry over winter, I took it 
out, three years running, to the farm, and worked it into compost. 

Q. — How large is your pond? A. — About twelve acres: it is a 
small pond. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Something pollutes the water a great deal 
more to-day than ten years ago, or five years ago ? A. — Oh ! it has 
increased all the time graduall}’. 

Q. — Has the amount of pollution from surface drainage or the 
manufactories increased during the last five years? A. — I don’t see 
why it should, from the surface. 

Q. — Has the amount put into it by the city of Worcester increased 
within the last five years? A. — Oh, yes! that has increased every 
day: that they don’t deny. They tell me I got on the wrong end : 
if I had got up above Worcester, I would be well enough off; as I 
went below Worcester, I must take any thing that comes to me. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) — Is that what is said to you personally 
by Worcester people? A. — Yes, sir. 


85 


Q- —People in high position there? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q- — That is the common kind of talk you meet with? A. — That 
is the common kind of talk we meet with. They don’t admit that 
they have done any thing that they had not a perfect right to do, and 
say" that we must submit to what they have done. 

Q (By Mr. Smith.) —When gentlemen speak to you in that way, 
do you consider it serious talk, or a little bantering? A. — Well, it 
is talk. It is not the authorities, the may-or of the city, and those 
people : but it is people that bluff off these things, and say we 
have no claim ; that if we have settled there, the natural stream ran 
there before we went there, and we must take the consequences ; and, 
if we block up the stream and use the privileges, we must take what 
they send down to us, which is the natural drainage w T hich the river 
was calculated to carry off. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Is it what you would characterize as 
good-natured talk, or as serious talk? A. —I take it as good- 
natured talk ; but there is something back of it. They don’t intend 
to put their hands in their pockets to meet any thing in the way of 
taxes to help us out. When they^ are short of water, they" go out and 
put a steam-pump in, and say they want the water to run through 
their sewer; and they' tell us, if they T use it in a steam-engine, we get 
it in vapor in the first shower that we get down the river. 

Q. (By Mr. Campbell.) —Have any citizens of Worcester ac¬ 
knowledged that they pollute this water to any great extent? A. — 
Oh, y T es, sir! a good many of the first officers of the city" have. 

Q. —Did they claim that they" had a right to do it? A. — Yes. 
I have talked with a number of the officials, Mr. Chapin in his day", 
Mr. Earle and Mr. Ball and Mr. Blake, who first put it in. Mr. 
Chapin always admitted that it was wrong: Mr. Earle did not admit 
that it went into the river to any r extent, to go down as far as our 
place ; but, in going down to his monthly meeting, I called his at¬ 
tention to it. He looked at it, and admitted that there was a great 
deal of dirt in the river; and he said, “Thee has a very dirty place 
about here.” 

Q. — What did y-ou say to the last part of his remark? A .— 
Well, I took it as a joke : I knew Mr. Earle very well. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Do y"ou remember when the dams on the 
river below Worcester were built? how earty any of them were built? 
A. —I don’t think I could give the date. 

Q. —Not the exact date ; but was it ten, fifty, or a hundred y-ears 
ago? A. —I recollect when the Burling dam was built. It was 
since the railroad was built: it was since the discontinuance of the 
Blackstone canal. 

Q. — Have any of them been built since 1867 ? A. —I should 


86 


think not. The}" built a dam at Burling Mills last year, or a year 
before, across the river, where they took water formerly out of the 
canal. 

Q. — But there was a clam there before that? A. —Yes. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You have a familiar acquaintance with 
a good many of the leading men of Worcester, I suppose,—the 
bankers, mill-owners, and business men of all sorts, and have had 
for a good many years? A. — Oh, yes, sir ! 

Q. —Many of them are your personal friends, I suppose? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. —When you get together, and banter and talk, and argue on 
one side and the other of this question, you maintain your side of it 
to the best of your ability? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —That is all you mean to say, isn’t it? You don’t mean to say 
that there is any organized opinion in Worcester, one way or the other, 
about this thing, that you know of ? A. — I don’t think there is. I 
think there has been a deficiency in looking after all this thing, until 
it has got beyond their control. I don’t think that they supposed, 
when it was first put in by Mr. Blake, that it would ever amount to 
what it has. They have had success in building up the city, they 
require a great deal of water to come into it, and it has got to go out 
in their sewer; and it has got now beyond what the}’ or anybody else, 
fifteen years ago, expected it would. I was always fearful that we 
should have trouble there, and always talked about it. 

Q. — I want to ask you another question, and that is, whether the 
rate of increase in this impurity was greater between 1870 and 1875 , 
than between 1875 and the present time? A. — It has been greater 
the last five or six years : it has increased with the city and the wants 
of the people. 

Q . — You know the State Board of Health of Massachusetts say 
there has been a marked decrease in the ratio of increase, so to 
speak; that it increased more rapidly between 1870 and 1875 , than 
between 1875 and 1880 , whether you agree with that opinion, or not? 

Mr. Flagg. I don’t know that. 

Mr. Goulding. Let us understand each other as we 20 alono*. 

O O 

On p. 124 of the report of the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and 
Charity, for the year 1882 , they say, “ Comparing the results from 
the several examinations in 1881 with those of the State Board of 
Health in 1872 , it is clear that the pollution of the stream has in¬ 
creased since that time. As compared with the chemical examina¬ 
tions made by the Board in 1875 , there is also an increase, although 
much less marked.” That is the expression that I refer to, if it bears 
out the remark : if it doesn’t, it don’t, that’s all. In other words, there 
has been an increase from 1872 up to the present time. “ As com- 


87 


pared with the chemical examinations made by the Board in 1875, 
there has also been an increase, although much less marked.” I 
understand it to mean that the increase is much less marked. 

Mr. Morse. I desire the Committee to notice, in connection with 
that, a remark of the Board on p. lxv. In the middle of the page 
they will find these words : “A comparison of the chemical analyses 
of the waters of the Blackstone River, made in 1881, with a large 
number made by the State Board of Health in 1875, reveals a very 
serious increase in the percentages of polluting matter.” 

Q. (By Senator Tirrell.) —Suppose all those dams through 
Millbury and those other villages were removed, and this river had 
its natural flow, would there be any cause of complaint then, in your 
opinion? A. —Yes, sir. It would not affect it but a very short 
time: it would all fill up. Joseph Mason of Worcester called my 
attention to that, and asked my opinion. In my opinion, it would 
grow up just as ditches do in our low ground; and it would all fill up. 
I do not see why this river would not fill up with those weeds and all 
this stuff, just the same as a ditch in a low meadow. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What is the fall from Worcester to 
Saundersville? A. — I think it is about forty-five or forty-six feet. 

Q. — And between Saundersville and the Rhode Island line, about 
what is it? A. —I have not the minutes. It is all laid down. 

Q. —Between Providence and Worcester, it is four hundred and 
twenty-eight feet, isn’t it? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —You think that the result of taking those dams out would be, 
that the river would fill up? Where would the water go to, down 
that four hundred and fifty-eight feet of slope? A. — Flow over the 
land. It would go at random, wherever it found the lowest place. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —What would be the effect upon the indus¬ 
tries of Millbury, Grafton, Sutton, Northbridge, Uxbridge, and 
Blackstone, with their twenty-five thousand inhabitants and thirty- 
two hundred operatives, of taking down the dams? A. —Well, 
it would depopulate that country. That is the business that they 
have been brought up to, the business that the}' are calculated 
to carry on: I do not see an} 7 other business that they could adapt 
themselves to. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Were those dams in existence long before 
the city of Worcester turned its sewage into the Blackstone River? 
A. — Oh, yes ! 

Q. — Do you know when the city of Worcester turned its sewage 
into the Blackstone River? A. — I have not the date. It was in 
Mr. Blake’s administration. I believe Mayor Stoddard, at your 
right, can tell you exactly. 

Mr. Goulding. I do not understand that to be the history of the 
sewage of the city of Worcester. 


88 


Mr. Morse. Do } t ou claim that the city of Worcester had any 
s} r stem of sewage that was turned into the Blackstone River before 
the Act of 1867 authorized it to be done? 

Mr. Goulding. Long before that, the court had held that it had 
a right to do it. 

Mr. Morse. By a system of sewerage? 

Mr. Goulding. Yes, sir, b}^ a system of sewerage. I do not 
understand that a sewer that embraces several streets is any thing less 
than a system of sewerage. I do not mean that the statute of 1867 
was passed before 1867 : that was just the year it was passed. 

Mr. Flagg. Didn’t the court hold that they had no right to put 
their sewage into the river to the insignificant extent that they were 
then doing it? and didn’t they come down here and say that they 
must have the statute of 1867 in order to empty it into the river? 

Mr. Goulding. We shall discuss the law, hereafter, very fullj r ; 
and we shall discuss the cases. Very likely our friends may not 
agree with us as to what the law is. As a matter of fact, the sewage 
of Worcester has gone into the Blackstone for a hundred and fifty or 
a hundred and seventy-five years. 

Mr. Morse. It has been a very different kind of sewage until 
within the last few years. 

Mr. Goulding. For more than thirty years before 1867 we had 
systems of sewers. 


TESTIMONY OF JOEL SMITH. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live where? A. —Wilkinsonville. 

Q. —That is in the town of Sutton? A. —In the town of Sutton. 
Q. — Tell us how far Wilkinsonville is below Millbury? A. — A 
little over two miles. 

Q. —Making five miles from the mouth of the sewer? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — What is your business there ? A. — I am superintendent of 
the Sutton Manufacturing Company. 

Q. — How long have you been superintendent ? A. — Three vears. 
Q . — How many people do you employ? A .—Two hundred and 
seventy. 

Q .—How many people live in the village of Wilkinsonville? 
A. — I could hardly tell. 

Q. — About how many ? A. — About six or seven hundred. 

Q. — Mostly connected, in one way or another, with the mill? 
A. — No, sir: about two-thirds of them connected with the mill. 

Q. — Who owns this mill? A. —LI. N. Slater of Webster. 

Q — You say you have been there three years. In your dealing 


89 


with the water there, what have }’ou noticed, as to its purity, since 
you have been there? A. — I have noticed it is very impure. 

Q • — Is it fit to use in boilers? A. —I am using it in my boilers. 

Q• — Ho you consider it good? A. — No, sir : I would not use it 
if I could get any other convenient^. 

Q • — What means do you take to get along with it in your boilers? 
A. —We blow off our boilers very frequently. 

Q* — More frequentty than formerly? A. — Oh, yes, sir! that is. 
more frequently than I ever did at any other place. 

Q- —Tell us as to the appearance of the water about the flumes. 
A. — It is very dark, and frequently has a yellowish scum on the top 
of it; so dark that we cannot see the bottom of the trench, —some 
three or four feet deep. There has been only one occasion, since I 
have been connected with the establishment, when I could see the 
bottom ; and that was, I think, the very day that the State Board of 
Health were in Millbury. The night before, I noticed it, and called 
the attention of several other persons to the fact that I could see the 
bottom. I had occasion to go into the flume that night; and I could 
see the nails through the water in the bottom of the flume, where the 
water was two feet deep, which we were never able to do before, and 
have not since. I mention that as a fact: of course, I can’t account 
for it. Perhaps some of our Worcester people can, but I cannot. 

Q. —What proportion of the volume of water in the river passes 
through your flumes? A. — From June until December, the last 
three years, we have used nearl} T all of it. 

Q. —Where are the flumes situated? A. —We have a flume on 
the north side of the river, and pipes to take the water across. 

Q. — As regards the mill, are the flumes in the basement of the 
mill? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — So that for several months in the }*ear the greater part of the 
water in the river passes through the basement of your mill? A. — 
Yes, sir: nearty all of it. 

Q. — What, in your opinion, is the effect upon the health of the 
operatives? A. — Well, during the last } r ear we have had more sick¬ 
ness in our mill than any time previous since I have been there. Our 
pay-roll shows that there were more out, and more reported sick ; and 
the troubles seemed to be throat and bowel complaints : nearly all 
the cases that I have inquired after were either one or the other. 
Some of our tenements are located near the trench that supplies the 
water for the mill, and I have frequently had persons refuse to take 
those tenements on account of being so near the canal. One tenant 
last year I was obliged to move to another tenement, on account of 
that: the smell was so offensive, the}' could not stand it. 

Q. — Have }'OU had any trouble at your rack with dead fish? A. 
— Yes, sir. 


90 


Q. — On more than one occasion? A. — On three different occa¬ 
sions, — two last year, and one the year before. 

Q .—Describe the trouble to the Committee. A. — Dead fish 
collected there, and they had to be taken out. 

Q. — In quantities, or only one or two? A. — At one time I took 
out three bushels; and they are coming down to the rack, half a 
dozen at a time. 

Q. — Do 3 t ou think of any thing else that you wish to state ? A. — 
I don’t know that I do. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. G-oulding.)—C an you state how many more were 
out by reason of sickness last year than the year before? A. — I 
couldn’t state positively; but it was many days noticeable in running 
the machinery. 

Q. — Do } r ou have the means of telling exactly” by 3 T our books? A. 

— Not positively, because our books do not mark those that are sick 
when they are out. 

Q. — Have you examined your books to see how many more were 
out last year than the 3 T ear before? A. — No, sir : onl 3 T from obser¬ 
vation. 

Q. — It would have been easy for 3*011 to tell by looking at 3 r our 
books what the fact was about that, I suppose? A. — Well, not 
easy; because frequently hands sta 3 r out when the 3 r are not sick. 

Q. — I mean, it would be eas 3 ” for you to tell, b 3 r examining 3 T our 
books, whether more, and how many more, staid out last 3 T ear than 
the year before, for all causes? A. — Yes, sir: we could do that, 
although we have been troubled some for water, and it would be 
pretty hard to tell. 

Q. —This, then, is an impression, or belief, or opinion, that 3 ’ou 
have from observation, not from any examination of the books? A. 

— Yes, sir. 

Q .—'Have you an 3 ^ knowledge of medicine 3 ’ourself? A .—No, 
sir. 

Q. — Have 3 T ou any knowledge of what was the cause of those dis¬ 
eases? A .—-No, sir: I only” know from inquiry what the matter 
was, why they were out. 

Q. — Have 3 r ou more than one tenement that is so situated that it 
is troublesome to let it? A. —There are eleven. 

Q. —And all situated equally near to the stream? A. —The 
same. 

Q. — Are they all occupied now ? A. — No, sir. 

Q . — How many are unoccupied? A. — I think four unoccupied. 

Q. — How long have they been unoccupied? A. — Four or five 
months. 


91 


Q. — Are these unoccupied in consequence of being near the 
stream? A .—Not altogether. 

Q. — How many of them, if any, are unoccupied by reason of being 
near the stream? A .—I might say all, because the people take 
other tenements in preference to those, on account of their being 
there; and, as long as we have any others that they can get, they 
take those in preference. 

Q. — They take the preferable tenements? A. —Yes. 

Q. — Has there been any time when you have been obliged to get 
tenements outside for your help ? A. — No, sir : we have plenty now. 

Q. —They take the preferable tenements that are placed away 
from the stream? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How many times did you say you had had trouble with dead 
fish? A. — Three times; that is, three noticeable times: but we 
take fish out there nearly every day in the summer. 

Q. — All these three times were in the summer, when the water 
was low? A. — Yes, sir : no water running over the dam. 

Q. — How many did you say were taken out those three times? 
A. — Three bushels at one time. 

Q. — Was that the first time? A. —No, sir: that was the second 
time ; that was early last season. 

Q. —-Could you tell the month? A. —I should think about June, 
the last of June. 

Q. —Last June? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .— That was the second time, and three bushels were taken out 
then? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .— And the first time was when? A. — That must have been 
the fall previous. 

Q .— How many were taken out then? A. — I don’t remember: 
there were a good many. 

Q. — The third time was when? A. — That was last September. 

Q .—The water was low each time? A. —Yes, sir, low all those 
times. 

Q. —What kind of fish were they? A. —Nearly all suckers. 

Q .—Those not suckers, what were they? A. — I don’t remem¬ 
ber that there were any but suckers. 

Q. — Any perch among them? A. — No, sir. 

Q, _Any flat-fish? A. — I think not. I believe they were all 

suckers. There might have been one or two bull-heads among them. 

Q._More or less dead fish are still coming down? A. — Not in 

the winter. 

Q._Not in the winter, but in the summer? A .—In the sum¬ 


mer. 


92 


Re-direct Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg. )—I don’t remember whether I asked 3’ou 
about the odor. You spoke of it, I believe. What sort of odor did 
you notice? A. —Well, it is as near to cesspool odor as any thing 
I can think of. 

Q. — Where do you notice it? A. — All along the river. 

Q. — Through the mill? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How far back from the river do you notice it? A. — Well, 
a quiet morning I have noticed it, coming down to the mill, probabh” 
three hundred 3'ards from the river. 

Q . (By Dr. Wilson.) — What diseases did 3-ou say the operatives 
had last summer? A .—They were throat and bowel diseases mostl}’. 

Q. — What name did they call the throat-disease? A. — They 
called it sore throat, as near as I could find out. They did not call 
it diphtheria, because it was not severe enough to be termed that. 

Q. —Be3’ond that, 3 T ou don’t know? A. — No, sir. 

Q .—What were the bowel-diseases called? do 3'ou remember an3 r 
thing about that? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Was there more of that last 3 T ear than the year before? Did 
you notice any difference? A. —Yes, sir: my impression is, that 
there was a great deal more of it last summer. 

Q. — Than an3 T 3 r ear previous? A. — Than an3 T 3 T ear previous. I 
have only been there three 3'ears, 3-011 understand. 

Q. — When was the water lowest, last 3-ear or the 3’ear before? 
A. — I don’t think there was verv T much difference. The low water 
came earlier the 3-ear before than last 3 T ear. 

Q. — And lasted longer? A. — Lasted longer. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. FISHER. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live where? A. —Fisherville, Graf¬ 
ton. 

Q. — What is your business? A. — I am agent there for the 
Fisher Manufacturing Compaq". 

Q. — What do they- manufacture ? A. — Cotton goods. 

Q. — Is that the next privilege below Saundersville? A. — The 
next below Saundersville. 

Q -— You have heard the testimony of the other witnesses : what 
do you say as to the evil? A. — Well, very similar indeed. 

Q. — About using the water for the boilers, is it good ? A. — It is 

not good. I have had the same experience, although I have used it. 

I have wanted to have some other supply for the boilers, but have 

not as yet obtained it. We were burned out Jan. 27 , 1881 , and have 

not run, of course, since. We have been rebuilding. 

© 


93 


Q- — How mar^ operatives do you emplo}’, or did you? A .— We 
did employ about a hundred and twenty-five. 

Q •—How many people live in the village? A. — I don’t know: 
perhaps some three or four hundred. 

Q. —Tell us what you have noticed about the odor of the river in 
your flumes. A. — It has been very strong, very noticeable. 

Q. —How would you describe the odor? A. —It is, as Mr. Smith 
says, as near a cesspool as any thing. 

Q. —There is no mistake about it? A .—There is no question 
about that: it is an unquestionable fact. 

Q. — What is 3’our opinion as to its effect upon the health of your 
operatives? A. —I don’t know as I have noticed much about that. 

Q. — What is 3’our opinion ? 

Mr. Goulding. If he has not noticed, be cannot well have an}’’ 
opinion. 

A. — Well, it is common talk and common report, that it has an 
injurious effect; but still I cannot point out any particular case, and 
sa}’ - that that was caused by the water. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (B3 7 Mr. Goulding.) — How long have you been there? A. — 
I have been there since 1843 , with the exception of eight 3 T ears. 

Q. —How near do 30U live to the stream? A .—Perhaps three 
hundred 3 r ards. 

Q. — What does 3’our famil3 T consist of ? A. — Wife and necessar} r 
help. 

Q. — How old are 3’ou, Mr. Fisher? A. —Thirt3 r -seven. 

Q. — Is this compaiw named for you or for 3’our father? A .— 
Well, no particular name, as I know of,—Fisher Manufacturing Com- 
pany. 

Q. — I did not know but it was named for your father. A. — No : 
it has been organized since his death. It was organized this last 
spring. 

Q. —Are 3*011 the son of Mr. Waterman Fisher? A. —Erastus 
Fisher. 

Q .—Did your father live there before you? A. — He did: he 
moved away from there in 1861 . and I went back there in 1868 . 

Q. — When did3*our father die? A. — He died a year ago last April. 

Q. —He did not live there at the time? A. — Oh, no ! he has not 
lived there since 1861 . He used to be back and forth while he lived. 
There is one point that has not been called out; and that is, the use of 
the water for bleaching purposes. We wanted to use it for bleaching 
purposes, and for starching our towels, or sizing them ; and it got to 
be so foul that we couldn’t use it, —that is, on white work, — but we 


94 


could on the brown goods. If we had not been burned out, we 
were going to bring, this last summer, a supply from off the hill for 
that purpose. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM H. LINCOLN. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Where do you reside? A. —In Mill- 
bur j\ 

Q. — Your profession ? A. — Physician. 

Q. — How long have you resided in Millbury ? A. — Sixteen years 
last May. 

Q. — Have you noticed in that time a change in the Blackstone 
River? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you noticed any thing which would enable you to say 
that there was a change in the general health of Millbury during that 
time? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Will you tell what you have noticed? A. —If the Commit¬ 
tee will allow me, and the counsel do not object, I will make a simple 
statement, which perhaps will make it clearer than answering ques¬ 
tions. I came to Millbury sixteen years ago last May. The popula¬ 
tion of Millbury in 1870 was 4,397, I think. What the census was 
the ten years previous, I have forgotten; but, if my memory serves 
me, it was 3,900 and something: but I won’t be positive as to that. 
When I came there, there were two physicians in town ; and they 
thought there was no more than the}' could attend to well, that there 
was no place for a new man, — that they had nothing more than they 
cared to do. There are now six physicians there, five of them in 
active practice ; and perhaps it is safe to say that any one of the five 
is doing as much business as either of the two that were there before. 
I think that answers the question of the gentleman whether there is 
more sickness there now than formerly. 

Q. —In other words, your answer is that there is? A. —There 
is. 

Q. — What have been some of the kinds of sickness which you 
would think might be attributed, either in whole or in part, to the 
foulness of the river? A. — Well, I should say that the common 
sicknesses had been mostly of the zymotic type, —what we call the 
filth diseases ; perhaps scarlet fever, diphtheria, diarrhoeal troubles, 
dysentery, and diseases of that character. The increase would be 
largely of that kind. 

Q. — Have you in mind any particular cases which you can call to 
the attention of the Committee? A. —No: I don’t know of a case 
that I should be warranted in saying was the result of the sewage, or 
any thing of that kind. The general health-rate isn’t as good among 
our people. 


95 


Q.—And you attribute that to the influence of the river, as I 
understand you? A. — I know of no other reason : I know of noth¬ 
ing else to attribute it to. 

Q . —You have been in Millbury now sixteen } T ears : will 3 ’ou tell us 
what you have noticed about the river as it was when } r ou came there, 
and how it compares now? A. — When I came there, the bo 3 r s used 
it for bathing. There has been a gradual increase in its foulness. 

Q. — Have 3 ’ou heard the preceding testimon 3 T in regard to bath¬ 
ing? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do you agree with that testimo^^? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do cattle drink of that water? A. —No, sir. I have a 
piece that adjoins the river, and I pasture my cow there ; and she 
won’t drink at the river. I have to drive her somewhere else, twice 
a da 3 T , to have her get water. 

Q. —In general, what do 3 ’ou think the effect of the foulness of 
the river has been on the health of the people of Millbury, and the 
towns along the river? good or bad? A. — Bad. That is the idea ; 
but the Committee will understand me, I know of no other reason to 
which to attribute the amount of disease more than previously. 

Q. (B 3 t Dr. Ingalls.) —Do you know what the death-rate was in 
Millbury when you went there? A. — I do not. 

Q. — Do 3 ’ou know what it is now ? A. — I do not. 

Q. (B 3 ’ Senator Tirrell.)—D o you think that the number of 
physicians in Millbury is larger in proportion to the population, than 
in other places? A. — It would depend altogether upon the localit 3 T 
of the place. To illustrate that, so that you can understand it, — 
if you take a place of three thousand inhabitants, twenty or thirty 
miles from any larger place, that would be a better place for four or 
five physicians than a place of three thousand inhabitants would be 
for three, if it was within six or eight miles of some larger place. 
Any physician understands the principle upon which that is based. 

Q. — Is it not a fact, that doctors, like lawyers, have multiplied 
ver 3 ’ rapidly within the last ten years all over the State? and do you 
not find, in the towns with which you are acquainted, a larger num¬ 
ber of doctors and lawyers in proportion to the population than 
there was ten years ago? A. — I can name you three or four towns 
that I am well acquainted with, where the population has changed 
but very little in the last ten or sixteen years, where there are fewer 
physicians than there were at that time. I do not think that in the 
country the number of physicians has increased very much in the 
small towns. 

Q. (B 3 r Mr. Flagg.) —If it had, it would not account for the 
increase in the death-rate, would it? A. —That would depend 
something upon the gentleman’s faith in physicians. 


96 


Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Did you say what the death-rate of 
Millbury was? A. —No, sir: I did not make any statement in 
regard to that. 

Q. —What is your idea about it? A. —I do not know that it has 
increased. I said that the health-rate was not as good as it was at 
that time. 

Q. — That means, that the increase of doctors has not done any 
harm? A. —I think so, certainly. My idea is this : that the health- 
rate may not be as good, the general feeling of the community may 
not be as healthy and as well, and yet the death-rate not increase 
very much. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Is that a general proposition, doctor, 
that the death-rate is no criterion of the state of health? A. — I 
did not say that it was no criterion. I sa } 7 I can understand that 
the health-rate of a community ma}^ not be nearly as good, and yet 
the death-rate not increase a great deal, — not in proportion to the 
decrease in the health-rate. 

Q. — Would not such a thing be an exception to a rule? A. — I 
consider this place an exception to the rule. 

Q. — I am not asking about that now. I was trying to see if I 
could get some general principles that do not link themselves with 
absolute closeness to Millbury, if there were an} r such general prin¬ 
ciples. If 3 r ou will be kind enough to leave out Millbury for a little 
while: we are in Boston now. We have at present no odor from 
that river; and now I would like to ask you if such a state of things 
as that, w r here the death-rate does not furnish a pretty satisfactory 
indication as to the health-rate, would not be an exception to a 
general rule? A. — In a long series of years, it maj' be; but in 
a series of five or ten years it might not be. 

Re-direct. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Your attention was called at one time 
to a tank in C. D. Morse’s mill? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—Will you describe what you saw? A. — Well, there was a 
tank there ; and water came from the river into the tank. 

Q . — Where was the tank situated? A. — In the upper part of 
the mill. 

Q . — How large a tank? A. — Well, I won’t state; for I can’t 
say. It was a tank that they pumped up water into to use for 
certain purposes. 

Q- — Would it hold a hogshead of water? A. —I should say it 
might, and it might hold more or less. I took a small stick and 
passed it around the edge of the tank ; and there was quite a large 
amount of sediment on it, that had a very strong foecal odor. 


97 


Q- — Y° u saw no means of any frncal matter getting in there, 
except from the river? A. — No, sir. 

lie-cross. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —When was this? A .—I can’t say. 
Some two years ago, I should say. 

Q • — How large was the tank? A. —I don’t recollect. I should 
say it may have held a hogshead, and may have held more. 

Q* — Was it about the size of a hogshead, or larger? A .—It 
was nearly a square tank, — rectangular. 

—And would hold about a hogshead? A. — Somewhere there¬ 
abouts. 

Q •—And was full of water? A .—No, sir: there was but very 
little water in it at that time. I won’t say there was any water 
in it. 

Q. — Was it dry matter or muddy? A. —It was muddy. 

Q. — And you stirred it up with a stick? A. — No, sir: I told 
you I had a stick in my hand, and I scraped it around the edge of 
the tank, and then smelt of it, and found that it was a pretty stinking 
place. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —How did the water get into the tank? 
A. — B} t pumping. 

Q. (Bj t Mr. Goulding.) —Did you ever see a tank that had held 
water for a length of time that would not have more or less mud in 
the bottom? A. — I don’t think I ever did: this was undoubtedly 
faecal mud. 

Q. — Have you ever made an} T figures or calculations for the purpose 
of determining what the health-rate of Millbury has been for the past 
five 3’ears? A. — I know of no way to make that calculation. 

Q. —Then 3-011 have not, of course? A. — No, sir. 

Q .— What you sa3' about that is your impression from 3’our gen¬ 
eral practice? A. — That is all. 

Q. — What school of medicine do 3'ou belong to? A. — Well, 
what is called the regular school. 

Q. — Are all the physicians in Millbury regulars? A. — No, sir: 
there is one homoeopath. 

Q .—And you say there are now how man3 T physicians in town? 
A. — Six, — five in active practice. One is the father of the homoeo¬ 
pathic practitioner, who does not do much business. 

Q. — Has your business grown considerabl3 r since you went there? 
A. —Well, I should say that for the past few 3 T ears it had not grown ; 
rather cut off at the back end of it, somewhat. 

Q. —Is it feasible for a physician to determine with some degree 
of certainty whether a particular case is the result of river pollution? 


98 


A .— Well, I never Lave seen a case that I could say, with any degree 
of certainty, that that was caused the river. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. GEORGE C. WEBBER. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — And practise as a physician there? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you practised there ? A. — Eleven years last 
December. 

Q. — As to the condition of the river when you came there, and as 
to its condition now, — have } T ou noticed any change? A. — I should 
say it was veiy much more foul now than then. 

Q .—What do you notice now about it as to foulness? A. — Its 
color is dark, muddy: the water and odor are both extremel} T foul. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Have you heard what the preceding 
witnesses have said? A. —Most of them. 

Q. —Do you agree with what they say, in general, in regard to 
the color and odor, in regard to people bathing in the river, and all 
that, as far as you know? A. — I agree with it all, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —As to your practice there, in what w r ay 
have you noticed the effect of the river upon the health of people, or 
what can you say as to that? A. — I should say its effect was bad. 

Q .—That is stating the matter general^, Now, have 3’ou any 
particular cases that you would speak of ? A. — I would state first, 
if I ma}’ be allowed, generally; and I will then go into some particu¬ 
lar cases. The foulness of the stream, and its offensive odor, are 
generally acknowledged. Such a stream emits such exhalations as 
are conceded by all sanitarj- authorities to be the producing causes, 
often, of zymotic diseases. That in a general way. I will say fur¬ 
ther, before ^alluding to specific cases, that I think it not right to 
consider entirely and exclusively the death-rate ; that there are inju¬ 
rious influences which the figures of death-rates do not show. I do 
not know that I can any better state that than by reading a short 
paragraph from a work on “Filth Diseases and their Prevention,” 
printed in 1876 , under the direction of the State Board of Health of 
Massachusetts. It is the third paragraph on the sixth page. It is 
by Dr. John Simon of England, a sanitary authority there. 

“I do not pretend to give any exact statement of the total influence which 
preventable diseases exert against the efficiency and happiness of our popula¬ 
tion; for it is only so far as such diseases kill, and even thus far but very imper¬ 
fectly, that the effect can be represented in numbers. Of the incalculable 
amount of physical suffering and disablement which they occasion, and of the 
sorrows and anxieties, the often permanent darkening of life, the straitened 
means of subsistence, the very frequent destitution and pauperism which attend 
or follow such suffering, death statistics, to which alone I can refer, testify only 
in sample or by suggestion,” 


99 


As to specific cases, I will allude to a few in which the proximity 
of the cases to the river render it at least probable that this may 
have been one of the determining causes of the disease. I cannot 
follow them in chronological order, but that is of no consequence. A 
year ago last fall, there occurred in one house four cases of typhoid 
fever, which is one of the diseases attributable to such causes. One 
case W'as very severe, and proved fatal: the other cases recovered. 
There was no apparent cause about the premises. I inquired as far 
as I could, and could determine no cause about the premises. The 
house was situated somewhere, I should judge, from two hundred 
and fifty to three hundred feet from the river, at the bridge near the 
Atlanta Mill. That agency was plainly there, and ready to do what¬ 
ever work it w r as capable of doing. 

Another instance was of the occurrence of dysentery in four cases 
in a house situated somewhere in the neighborhood of three hundred 
feet, I should say, from the ordinary channel of the river; but at 
high water it overflowed the land to within seventy-five or eighty feet 
of the house. There also the premises were apparently cleanly, and 
no discoverable source of such infection. One of those cases proved 
fatal. It, however, occurred in the case of a child who had been sick 
for some time previous, and dysentery was developed in the course of 
convalescence ; but the other cases that occurred w r ere with persons 
previously health}’. 

There have been other cases, perhaps not quite as strong as those. 
I mention those from among a number as perhaps being the strong¬ 
est evidence in reference to this matter. One other case I will 
allude to. The case has been alluded to sometimes hitherto. It 
is that of a gentleman recently deceased, wdio died on the 10 th of 
January, who had lived to a somewhat advanced life. Mr. Benja¬ 
min Flagg first came under m} r observation and advice last May. 
lie wms one of our best known citizens, seen on the street every day; 
and it had been a common remark that he was looking veiy badly, 
as he had for two or three years. When he came under my observa¬ 
tion, I found he was affected with organic heart disease ; but of course 
I could not attribute that to the sewage. Whether it ma}’ have had 
any indirect connection with that, I am not competent to sa}\ But 
this much I will sa}’ in reference to that case : in the latter part of 
the fall he had occasion to have extensive repairs done at his mill, 
in some way connected with his water-power; and, while that \\as 
progressing, he was much of the time in that part of the mill where 
he would be exposed to emanations from the river, which is at that 
point very offensive, the river being narrow, and the water pouring 
through a comparatively small space. While he was engaged in 
overseeing and giving directions about these repairs, he w r as at- 


100 


tacked with diarrhoea. I think it is generally conceded that affec¬ 
tions that are characterized bv disturbances of the bowels, diarrhceal 
affections, are peculiarly liable to be occasioned by such causes. 
He was attacked by diarrhoea, which was not controllable ; and in 
his somewhat debilitated condition it continued until the fatal end, 
which occurred Jan. 10 th last. He was ill about six weeks, if I 
remember rightly. 

Q. — Were you familiar with the case of Mr. Howard, who died a 
short time ago? A. — I knew of the death of Mr. Howard. I had 
no professional connection with the case. I know he lived in a place 
where he must breathe those poisonous gases, being within a hun¬ 
dred or a hundred and fifty feet of the canal, which in times of low 
water must carry the greater portion of the water running through 
the river. 

Q. — How old was Mr. Howard? A. —Forty-six or forty-seven, 
I should say. I don’t know his age. 

Mr. Flagg. The Chairman of the Committee will remember that 
Mr. Howard testified before the Committee last year. 

Witness. In connection with the fact of such disease being 
occasioned by the foul condition of the river, it may be worthy of 
remark, that in 1877 I was called to see a number of cases of diph¬ 
theria, several very severe, at Quinsigamond Village, in the square 
brick house which is not far distant from the river ; and it is well 
known by gentlemen from Worcester that diphtheria prevailed ex¬ 
tensive^ in that village that season. 

Q. — Do you know how far the mouth of the sew r er is from Quin¬ 
sigamond? A. —I do not. It was not then near the Washburn & 
Moen Manufacturing Company. I think it was at that time up in 
the neighborhood of Cambridge Street. 

Q. — But these cases occurred near the Blackstone River? A. — 
Yes, sir : these four cases in one house. 

Q. — What can you say about the prevalence of sore throats in 
Millbury ? A. — Sore throats are common there, and they are plainly 
not simply local diseases. They are not simply diseases of the throat; 
for there is in the majority of cases a good deal of constitutional dis¬ 
turbance and prostration, headache, back-ache, low fever, and a gen¬ 
eral debilitated condition which takes much longer to relieve than the 
local trouble. The throat gets well, leaving the patient weak for a 
considerable time ; and that is one of the things which are attributed 
by many authorities to such influences as these. 

Q. — Have you an opinion on the subject? A. —I believe that 
the}' are more or less attributable to such causes. 

Q . (By the Chairman.) — Do you think that matter is yet fully 
understood? A. — I think there are very many things yet to be 
known about it, sir. 

\ 


101 


Q. (Ity Mr. Tirrell.) —In order to get all the facts, I would 
like to know whether the nationality of the population of Millbury 
has materially changed during the last ten or fifteen 3’ears ? Whether 
there are more of what we call foreign-born population now there 
than ten or fifteen years ago, and, if so, what proportion? A. — I 
should not be willing to venture an} r opinion as to the proportion. 
I should sa}* that there was perhaps a slight relative increase in the 
foreign population, but not large. 

Q • —Whether disease is more prevalent among that class in 3’our 
town than among the native born? A. —That class generally live 
in tenement-houses, and do not take the same care as to their sur¬ 
roundings that the native born do, and with results such as are seen 
in other places. 

Q. —You do not think that the increase in the amount of sickness 
is accounted for by the increase of that class of people? A. — Not 
to any large extent. 

Q. (Ity Dr. Wilson.) —You spoke of several cases of typhoid 
fever and diphtheria. I want to ask 3’ou where the people living in 
those two houses get their drinking-water, if 3’ou know. A. — Both 
from wells, but in both instances remote from privies or sink-drains 
or stables. 

Q. — Not located so that they could by any possibility be affected 
by bad drainage? A. —Not that I could see. 

Q .—You examined into that? A. — I examined into both those 
cases carefully. 

Q. (B}' Dr. Campbell.) — Have } 7 ou had under your care an}^ con¬ 
siderable number of the employes of the manufacturing establishments 
referred to? A. —I have more or less under my care all the time. 
I cannot sa}’ at any particular time any particular number that I had 
under my care. 

Q. — Any particular epidemic among them of an}’ kind? A .— 

Not recentlv. 

«/ 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) — Do you consider the odor which you speak 
of largely charged with sulphuretted hj’drogen? A. —I have never 
applied any chemical tests. I should presume it would be found to 
be so. 

Q. —What is the effect of that gas upon the mucous membrane of 
the throat, and other portions of the body, so far as you have observed? 
A. — I should express an impression simply, that it was an irritant ; 
but the throat affections which I spoke of, I expressly stated, were not 
simply local affections, but there was a great deal of constitutional 
disturbance accompanying them. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —What do you mean by “constitutional 
disturbance ” ? Do you think this constitutional disturbance was the 




102 


result of the throat-disease? or do you think the throat-disease was 
the result of the constitutional disturbance? or do you think there 
were two separate causes? A. — I think there was one cause which 
produced both effects. 

Q. — Do you think there was any blood-poisoning ? A — I think 
there was. 

Q .—You think there was blood-poisoning, together with the local 
affection? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Should 3’ou think that was due to sulphuretted h}’drogen ? 
A. — I should not want to say it was due to sulphuretted hydrogen. 
I should say it was probably due to poisonous emanations, not neces¬ 
sarily chemical. I have noticed an odor which resembled the odor 
of sulphuretted Irydrogen often. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Do you think, from your knowledge of the 
river, and the work that the people of the town are engaged in mostfy, 
that the condition of the river is such as is very likely to produce an 
epidemic? A. — I should perhaps wish to modify the question a 
little. Is it likely to become such? In the condition in which it 
now is, I should hardly venture an opinion : but my observation has 

been, that, with the growth of Worcester dining the last ten } T ears, 

* 

there has been an immense increase in the filth carried down the 
river, and the odor has become increasingfy disgusting, and, at times, 
well-nigh unendurable; and if the city continues to grow at the 
same rate, when it shall have reached a population of a hundred 
thousand, as I have no doubt its citizens believe it will, that will be 
immensely increased; and it will be very likely to be a cause 
which might produce epidemic diseases. 

Re-cross. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Do you know any thing about what the 
death-rate of Millbury has been for the past five years, as compared 
with the five previous years? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —You have not investigated it at all, or looked to see? A. _ 

I have not looked at the figures. 

Q .—Do you belong to the regular school of medicine? A. _ 

Yes, sir. 

Q •—Have you ever had any typhoid fever in Millbury, except 
these cases to which you have referred? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Whereabouts? A. —There have been cases where similar 
influences were found prevailing. 

Q. — I don’t ask you to argue the case; I ask you to answer my 
question : the counsel will argue it fully when the time comes. Now, 
can you tell me in which localities you have had typhoid fever, with¬ 
out arguing any thing about it? We want to get at the facts. A. — 


03 


Yes, sir: I can answer the question. I have had some cases in the 
vicinity of what is known as Brierly’s Mill. 

Q • —Is that in Bramanville? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q • — How many cases had you there? A. —I cannot tell you : it 
was some 3 r ears ago. I should have to count them up on my book. 

Q •—I only want a general idea. A. — I have had quite a number 
in that vicinity. 

Q. — Can 3*011 tell about the number? A. — No, sir: I should 
not venture an opinion ; it ma3* have been half a dozen, and it may 
have been a dozen. 

Q. — Within how many years? A. — Since my residence in Mill- 
buiy, which is eleven years. 

Q . — An3^ other localities where 3*011 have had t3 T phoid fever, 
except those 3*ou have already mentioned? A .—There have been 
cases of t3 T phoid fever occurring in various localities in the town. 

Q. — Some remote from the river? A. — Some remote from the 
river, and several that I have not mentioned near the river. 

Q. —How maiy remote from the river? A. —Those in town that 
have been remote from the river have been where there is the most 
population, and therefore in Bramanville, which is more remote than 
the lower village. 

Q. — I did not ask 3 T ou about Bramanville, because 3 T ou had 
already stated about that. Are there an3 7 ' other localities except 
Bramanville, remote from the river, where 3*011 have had cases of 

t3*phoid fever? A .—I do not recall any now within the limits 

* 

of the town. I have had them in the adjoining towns. 

Q. — Have you had any other cases of dysentery except those four 
cases 3*ou have mentioned? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—Where have 3 T ou had them? A. — In various localities in 
town, some in Bramanville, and some in other places. 

Q .—How old was Mr. Benjamin Flagg when he died? A .—I 
don’t remember just his age, — seventy-five, seventy-six, or seventy- 
seven. 

Q. — Was he taken sick in November or December? A .—His 
last sickness was in November. 

Q. — And he died in the winter? A. — He died in January. 

Q. — I don’t understand that you attended Mr. Howard? A. — I 
did not, sir. 

Q. — Do you know who was his physician ? A. — I think Dr. 
Slocomb, the last part of his illness. He had several during his ill¬ 
ness. 

Q. — Had he been a man of pretty robust health? A .—I had 
never had any professional acquaintance with him, and had no occa¬ 
sion to talk with him about health matters. 


104 


Q. — Then, you don’t know about it? A. — Not specially, sir. 

Q. — I don’t understand that you undertake to testify that there is 
any such condition of things there now as is likely to produce any 
epidemic, but you think that in the future there may be? A. I 
think in the future there probably will be. I think there are injurious 
influences there now. 

Q. — I understand you to say that; but the question I asked you 
was, whether you undertake to say that there is at the present time 
such a condition of things as will be likely to produce an epidemic? 
That is a perfectly simple question, and need not be coupled with 
an } 7 thing else. A. — I am not ready to say that there is an epi¬ 
demic threatening us from the river. 

Q. — Whether there is any cause for an epidemic? A. — I say 
there are causes capable of producing it. 

Q. — Likely to produce it? A. — I won’t say likely; I say capable 
of producing it. 


TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. HARRINGTON. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Where do you live? A. — In Worcester. 

Q. — Your business is where? A. — In Millbury. 

Q. — What is your business in Millbury? A. — I run the Atlanta 
Woollen-Mill. I was interested in the Burling Woollen-Mills ; but I 
sold out my interest in the Burling Mills about four months ago. 

Q. — How long have you been familiar with the river in Millbury? 
A. — I went to live in Millbury in 1840 . I bought the Atlanta Mill, 
or became part owner, in 1856 , and became a part owner in the Bur¬ 
ling Mills in 1869 . 

Q. — Going back to that time, do }OU remember the river-water? 
A. — Perfectly, sir. 

Q. — It was used then for bathing and domestic purposes, was it 
not? A. — At the Atlanta Mill in 1856 (it was then used as an iron¬ 
working establishment, making edge-tools), the water used to come 
into the shop, and was used on the trip-hammers ; and in the winter 
the workmen never went out of the shop to get any water to drink, 
but drank that water. I have drank it myself thousands of times, 
and should in the summer, if it had not been for its being warm. 

Q. — It is impossible to do that now ? A. — It is impossible. 

Q. — You have heard the testimon} r of the other witnesses as to 
the odor and color of the water, — is your experience the same as 
theirs? A. — Only more so, sir. 

Q. — Will you state, in your own way, how more so? A. —Be¬ 
cause I think I have had more experience, and been there more. 
Last summer I relined the Burling Mills flume ; and there was about 


105 


half an inch of sediment settled on the inside of the flume, which, 
when we went to repair it, we had to stop three days, I think, to let 
it dry, before we could go in there ; and then we went in and scraped 
it off before we could commence repairing it at all. It was a sedi¬ 
ment of filth collected on the inside of the flume ; and it was so offen¬ 
sive when we w r ere repairing the flume, that, when I would go down 
to examine and see what the men were doing, I would stay there as 
short a time as possible, and go away, and then come again. It was 
so bad, that, as I stood upon the floor, I couldn’t stand it. It was 
difficult to get the men to go in to do the repairs. 

Q. (Ity Mr. Smith.) —Ten or fifteen years ago w r as there any thing 
of this same kind? A. —Not the slightest. We put in a new flume 
in 1857, and took out the old ones ; and the flumes which we took out 
w r ere just as clean as they were the da} T they were put in. We took 
out the old wdieel and put in a new one in 1857, and repaired the 
flume; and the lining was worn thin, but free and clean. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —As to the fitness of this w r ater for use 
in boilers, scouring, and so forth? A .—'At the Burling Mills we 
had to abandon the use of it entirely for scouring wool or cloth. We 
do as vet use it for the boilers, but blow our boilers out three times a 
week. We are driving wells now, for the purpose of getting clean 
water to put into the boilers. 

Q. — Have you any hesitancy in sa3 T ing, from your familiarity with 
the river, that it is in such a state of pollution as to be a nuisance 
to you, both in your business and health? A .—There is no doubt 
but what it is to me, and everybodj r above and below me. 

Adjourned. 


106 


THIRD HEARING. 

Tuesday, March 14, 1882. 

The hearing was resumed at 10 . 15 . 

The Chairman stated that the Committee desired, if possible, to 
close the hearing this week, and suggested to the counsel for the 
petitioners, that the}' should confine their testimony to new points, 
and refrain from introducing merely cumulative evidence. 

Mr. Flagg. Mr. Chairman, our only embarrassment in proceeding 
with the hearing is to determine where to draw the line. We under¬ 
stand very well that the Committee ought not to be burdened with 
simply cumulative evidence; and we had supposed, until my brother, 
the City Solicitor, gave us to understand to the contrary, that 
the fact of nuisance was one that would not be seriously contro¬ 
verted. But the Committee will remember, and it appears in the 
report, that my brother said, “ We deny that there is an} r nuisance. 
We shall offer to show, from evidence that has already been put in, 
that there is no nuisance b\ r necessary implication.” That drove 
us to the introduction of testimony which we had supposed would 
not be necessary. We had thought that the evidence which we put 
in, put in from the Reports of the State Board of Health, more par¬ 
ticularly that of last year, would be sufficient upon that point. But 
still, in the evidence that we propose to offer, we shall endeavor, not 
to make it simply cumulative, and shall offer evidence only from 
parties who have some particular facts to bring before the Committee 
which have a bearing upon that point. 

I will sa}^ a .word further. Assuming that it is not necessary to 
pile up more evidence as to the nuisance, the remaining question will 
be, “ What ought to be done? ” We desire to offer evidence upon 
that point; and we shall, in the course of the hearing, offer the 
evidence of Mr. Waring. I understand that Dr. Walcott, one of 
the commission making the Report to the State Board of Health, 
expects, from some intimations from the Committee, to appear; and 
we desire to have his testimony. Dr. Folsom, another of the com¬ 
missioners, desires, if he appears at all, to appear as called by the 
Committee, not as a witness offered by us. If asked by the . Com¬ 
mittee, I understand he is willing to appear. I presume the Com¬ 
mittee will desire to have the testimony of experts as to the feasi¬ 
bility of such plans as have been adopted in other countries ; and 
I hope, before the hearing is over, that the Committee will see fit to 
ask Dr. Folsom to appear. 


107 


Mr. Goulding. On two or three different occasions the counsel 
on the other side have tried to lay the blame of the protraction of 
this hearing upon the counsel for the city of Worcester. I have on 
one occasion before, and I now repeat, said that we shall not contro¬ 
vert any of the facts stated in the last Report of the State Board of 
Health, Lunacy, and Charity. I said once before that the counsel in 
his opening remarks had made a great many vague statements, and 
drawn conclusions which perhaps, as we lawyers say, are not strictly 
traversable : w r e could not plead to them, but we most emphatically 
deny their conclusions. We most emphatically deny their inferences 
and their vague generalities. If they can find in the Report of the 
State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, any statement that 
a nuisance, which is injurious to the public health, exists in con¬ 
nection with this river, they will have the benefit of it. We deny 
the fact, and say they cannot find it in that report. If they can, 
they can point it out in their closing argument. We do not controvert 
any facts, that I am aware of, that are stated in that report. We 
disclaim all responsibility for any protraction of this hearing by the 
inhabitants of the town of Millbury. 

Mr. Flagg. I do not understand whether my brother calls the 
statement on p. Ixv of the Third Annual Report of the State Board 
of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, a statement of fact, or a conclusion 
which he will den}'. Upon that page you will find, referring to the 
report of this commission, the following statement of fact , as we 
call it: — 

“As the consideration of this report, in connection with one to be subse¬ 
quently publicly noticed, will bring more directly to public attention than ever 
before the rapidly increasing pollution of streams not used as sources of water- 
supply for domestic uses, but which, as in the case of the Blackstone at 
Millbury, are becoming too foul, even for manufacturing purposes, and as objec¬ 
tionable to residents on their banks as open sewers would be,” etc. 

Mr. Goulding. I suppose that counsel understand the difference 
between a collection of matter that emits offensive odors that may be 
disagreeable, and a public nuisance or a private nuisance. When I 
use the term “public nuisance” or “private nuisance,” I use it in 
its accepted sense. I find, on looking over this Report of the State 
Hoard of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, that they were men who knew 
just exactly what they were talking about. They w'ere not making a 
report for one side or the other. They were guarded in their lan¬ 
guage. They have made a perfectly fair, honest, and square report. 
In the closing argument on this case I shall have occasion to call 
attention to that report. My friends on the other side seem to 
confound the distinction between the conclusions the men who work 
in Mr. Morse’s factory, and who “curse the river,” come to, and the 


108 


judgment of a commission that has investigated the subject, and 
undertakes to state facts. 

Mr. Flagg. It seems, then, we shall agree only on one point 
(I am glad to agree on that), — that the members of the commission 
knew what the}?' were talking about. 

Cross-Examination of William H. IIarkington. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —How long is it since you ceased to use 
the water of the Blackstone River as a beverage down at your mill? 
A. — A good many years. 

Q .—About how many? A. — I don’t remember of using it for 
fifteen years. 

Q .—You were here and testified last year, I believe? A. — I 
think so: yes, sir. I have been here before, and I think it was last 
year. 

Q .—Did you not testify in substance last year, with regard to 
the washing of your wool at the Burling Mills, that it seemed to you 
that it was iron in the water that caused the difficulty? I do not 
undertake to put into my question your exact words, but I simply 
recall the impression that was on my mind. A .—To explain what¬ 
ever I might have said, it is, in my opinion, that, with many other 
things. 

Q. — Do you remember whether that was what you said before? or 
don’t you remember? A. — I don’t. 

Q. — Whatever your opinion was, what is your opinion now in 
regard to the proportion of iron that produces this effect? A. — I 
have no opinion as to the proportion. I think there are iron and 
vitriol in the water. 

Q. — Do you know the amount of chemicals that is used in the 
Burling Mills, when they are in full operation, for the purpose of 
scouring? A. — We use, for scouring, salt and soda-ash. 

Q. —I speak about the quantity, whether you know the quantity? 
A. — I do not. 

Q. — Do you know the quantity of dyestuffs that is used when the 
mill is running full? A. — Not in pounds or tons. 

Q. — Have you at any time, in the Burling Mills, scoured wool 
brought there for that purpose to be carried away again, — the wool 
of other parties brought there to be scoured ? A. — I have not, sir. 

Q. — Do you know of that being done there before you owned 
those mills? A. — No, sir: I don’t know that they ever scoured 
any. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —So far from scouring wool for other par¬ 
ties, have you not at times felt obliged to buy scoured wool? A. 
— We have, for the last number of years, bought scoured wool in 


i 


109 


the room of scouring it, whenever we could find what we wanted. 
We have abandoned the use of the water now for the purpose of 
scouring either wool or goods, and are making preparations for 
abandoning it for the purpose of making steam : it is so impure that 
it cannot be used for that purpose. 

Q •—You are familiar with what is poured into the river at the 
woollen-mills from d3*eing and scouring. How does that compare in 
offensiveness, and as to its effects upon health, in your opinion, with 
sewage matter? A. —It is not offensive to the smell: it is offensive 
to the sight, because it is dark-colored; but there is no odor that 
arises from it, and nothing that I can see that would affect the health 
at all. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You are not a physician, I suppose, so 
as to know what the effect upon health would be? A. — Not a prac¬ 
tising physician. 

Q. — But it does produce an effect upon the color of the water, 
you think? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Like that, for instance [showing bottle marked “No. 3 ’’] ? 
A. — Well, 3’ou can get some like that. I can get some like that any 
time. 

Q. — So far as the color of the water is concerned, you admit that 
the dyestuffs might produce the effect? A. — Of course they would. 
I can get it of a color like that. I can get 3 T ou sediment like that in 
our race an3 T da3 T . 

Q. — I was not asking you airy thing about 3 T our race or the pond. 
That is not responsive to nry question ; but I don’t want to restrict 
3’our answers at all. I understand that, so far as color is concerned, 
the d3'estuffs make a difference? A. — We have no woollen-mills 
above us at all. 

Q. —Kettle Brook is full of woollen-mills, is it not? A. —What 
I mean b3 r “ above us,” is between us and the mouth of the sewer. 
The water is so impure there, that that mill cannot use the water for 
airy purposes other than for power. We have driven seven wells now. 

Q. — How much does it cost to drive one of those w r ells, pipe 
and all? A .—There are different sizes. I think one of them cost 
us $250. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Have you any thing more that you wish to 
inform the Committee about? A. —As regards the unhealthiness of 
the village, I cannot say that it is directly traceable to the sewer; 
yet it seems to be the general impression that it is unhealthy. 

Q. — At any rate, y’ou live in Worcester rather than Millbury? 
A. —I do, sir : I should not want to live on the stream all the time. 

Q. — On account of its impurities? A .—On account of its im¬ 
purities. 


110 


Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Not if you had a handsome residence 
on the main street in Worcester? A. —No, sir: I think the air is 
better, Mr. Goulding, where we live than down there. 

Q. — Have you any statistics, or have }’ou made any observation 
of the facts, so as to know whether the health-rate or the death-rate 
of Millbury compares favorably or unfavorably with other towns simi¬ 
larly situated? A. —No, sir, I have not. 

Q. —You speak from your general impression ; but }’ou know noth¬ 
ing about the facts, do you? A. — We hear these complaints among 
the operatives. 

Q. — Have you ever smelt that tripe-factory over on the west side 
of Blackstone River, between Worcester and Millbury ? A. — I have 
smelt something a great man}’ times. In fact, in the summer-time }’ou 
can hardly go down the road unless you smell something. Whether 
3’ou can trace it directly to the tripe-factory, I can’t say. 

Q. —You never noticed any thing particular along there opposite 
that tripe-factory? A .—I notice it particularly all the way from 
Burling Mills to Quinsigamond in the summer-time. I don’t think 
the tripe-factory would add any pleasant odors. 

Q. —It is not really a tripe-factory, is it? A. —No, sir : I believe 
not. 

Q. — Don’t you know that all the dead horses in Worcester are 
carried down to that factory ? A. — No, sir : I know they don’t carry 
any horses there. 

Q. — Don’t you know that all Kendrick’s horses are carried to 
that factory? A. — I know there isn’t one of Kendrick’s horses 
carried to that factory. They go below there, and are buried on what 
is called the Ewing farm, which is a mile below the tripe-factory. 

Q. — Don’t you know that there is a factory (I don’t know whether 
it is properly called a factory, or not) on the west side of the Black- 
stone River, down below Quinsigamond Village, which you approach 
by a turnout in the field from the old Millbury road, where all, or a 
large part, of the horses that die in Worcester are carried ; and that 
all Kendrick’s horses are carried there, and cooked up, and turned 
into glue, and whatever else they can make out of them? Don’t you 
know that fact, Mr. Harrington? A. —I don’t know it. 

Q. — Do you know it is not so? A. — I am positive it is not so. 

Q • — How do you know that it is not so ? A. — Why, because this 
Ewing, who lives on the place below what we call the tripe-factory, 
is the man who disposes of all the horses that have died. 

Q • — What does he do with them? A. —They are buried there. 

Q. — Buried? A. — I think that he cuts them up ; but this smell 
from what, we call the tripe-factory don’t come from that. 

Q. — Then, you think that the dead horses are not carried there? 


Ill 


-T. — They are not carried to this tripe-factor}*: they are carried 
down about a mile below, and buried there. 

Q • — Wherever they are carried, are they not disposed of by being 
cooked, and turned into glue, or whatever is done with them, at some 
factory establishment? A. —I think this Ewing has got a set kettle, 
and he cuts them up and boils them. 

Q. — You never were more mistaken in your life: there is plenty 
of evidence about that. A. — If that tripe-factory is cutting up 
horses, ft is beyond me. I never saw any thing of the kind there, 
and I never heard of it before. Those horses are carted to the Ewing 
farm, which is about a mile below the tripe-factory. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) —This Ewing has a rendering establish¬ 
ment, as they term it, hasn’t he, where he takes the dead horses that 
come down, and takes off their hides for leather, their hair for other 
purposes, and utilizes every part of them, as far as possible? A .— 
He has no factory: he has a set kettle that is set out of doors, but 
there is no mill and no building. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —There are two different establishments 
about there of some sort, I take it: that is all there is to it. A. — 
Yes, sir: the other one makes glue, or some substance. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.)— What do they make the glue out of? 
A. — Well, I have seen them carrying down there the refuse from the 
meat-markets of Worcester. 

Q. —Have you ever been over that factory yourself where they 
make glue ? A. — I have. 

Q. — Did you ever see that pile of horses’ skulls as large as a small 
mountain? A. —I think you are mistaken: those were the heads of 
cattle. Y r ou are mistaken in the kind of heads. 

Q .—Possibly; but cattle up our way have horns. A. —They 
were taken off before you saw them. The horns come off with the 
hides, you know. 

Q. — I suppose it to be a fact that there is a rendering establish¬ 
ment out there ; and I know from information from men who have 
knowledge of it, that all Kendrick’s horses are taken there. I was 
not there w*hen it was done. A. —They are taken to this Ewing. 

Q. —Taken down to this rendering factory? A. —That is Ew¬ 
ing’s, not the other man’s place : I have forgotten his name. 


TESTIMONY OF PETER SIMPSON. 


Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. — Yes, sir, I 

do. 

Q .—-You are engaged in manufacturing in Millbury? A. —Yes, 


sir. 


112 


Q. — How long have you lived in Millbury? A. —Twenty } 7 ears. 

Q. — Where did you live before coming to Millbury ? A. — Woon¬ 
socket, R.I. 

Q. —In what business were 3011 engaged there? A. —Woollen 
manufacturing. 

Q. — Are } r ou also engaged in business in Farnumsville? A .— 
Yes, sir: four miles below Millbuiy. 

Q. —The location of your mill in Millbury is next below the Cor¬ 
dis Mill? A. —Yes, sir: the last one in Millbury. 

Q. — And 3'ou manufacture what? A. —Woollen goods. 

Q. —In manufacturing woollen goods, you find it necessary to use 
large quantities of w'ater for certain purposes, do 3^011 not? A. —We 
have to, sir. We have to scour our wool, and scour our goods, and 
color them, which requires a large quantity of water. 

Q. — What has been your experience in using the Blackstone- 
river water at 3 T our mill in Millbury? A. —We have had a great 
deal of trouble with it, more particularly for the last three 3'ears. 
By the wa} T , I have a minute which I took of a quantity of goods 
which we made up in 1880 . There were something like seventy 
thousand 3’ards, which we made in one batch, one hundred cases, on 
which we made an allowance of five cents a yard, amounting to 
twenty-three hundred dollars, for the reason that we were not able to 
get them clean. I presume when the word “cadet” is used, it is 
understood by you, gentlemen: it was a lot of mixed — black and 
white. The water being so impure, it was impossible for us to get 
them clean and get them bright. At first, perhaps, they might 
appear partiallj 7 clean ; but the stain would work through, and turn 
the white yellow or drabbish, perhaps. 

Q. (By Mr. Wilson.) —When did you say this happened? A. — 
Those goods w r ere made in the 3 T ear 1880 . We had had some trouble 
before that; but that 3’ear we had the most trouble of any year. 
The goods were sold b} 7 Pomeroy & Palmer, in New York, a house 
w r ell known. After the goods had been sold some time, somebody 
made a claim ; and it was settled by allowing five cents per yard on 
about seventy thousand yards of goods, amounting to a little over 
twenty-three hundred dollars. Since that, we have not made that 
class of goods, for fear we should have the same trouble. It is a 
class of goods on which, when we make them, and make them prop¬ 
erly, we think there is a margin. 

Q. (B3- Mr. Flagg.) —The water is not so bad for scouring some 
kinds of goods as others, I take it? A. —It is just as bad, only it 
will not look as bad. There is the same trouble in dark goods that 
there is in light goods, and it will show itself afterwards. You can¬ 
not get a good black, nor a good brown, even, unless you have pure 


113 


water: that is well decided. Then, again, the water will rust — cor¬ 
rode — our wheels ; so much so, that we are obliged to scrape our 
wheels at least twice a year in order to get the power out of them. 
Now, in regard to corroding a wheel, it not only spoils the wheel, 
but reduces the power. You cannot get so much power from a wheel 
if it is corroded as you could if it was clean and bright. Not only 
does it destroy your wheel in time, but it destroys the power of the 
wheel. It will cause the gates of a wheel to corrode, and work hard ; 
so much so, that we had to give up iron gears and get metal gears 
cast on account of the gates working so hard. A common cast-iron 
gear would break, would not be sufficient!}" strong. 

Q. — Is the Blackstone-river water at your mill in Millbury suita¬ 
ble for manufacturing purposes? A. —Not woollen. 

Q. — As to the effect upon health at your mill in Millbury? A. — 
We have attributed a good deal of sickness to the water being so foul, 
so impure. 

Q. —Within a few days, there has been a case of typhoid fever 
there, I am told? A. —Yes, sir: the man died. 

Q. — Will you state the facts to the Committee? A. —A Mr. 
Wilmarth, who had charge of our mill at Farnum, four miles below 
Millbury, was taken sick a week ago yesterday morning, and died 
yesterday morning. He had been with me about four months: he 
came from Oxford. Mr. Wilmarth, in his own mind, attributed the 
cause of his sickness to the w-ater; and I have no doubt that Dr. 
Gage of Worcester would also say that the cause was the water. 

Q. —That was at your mill in Farnumsville. A. —Yes, sir, that 
was at Farnumsville. 

Q. — At that mill is the water fit for boiler purposes or making siz¬ 
ing? A. —It is not. We putina slasher — I presume you know 
what a slasher is : it is something that takes the place of a dresser in 
a cotton-mill, that we dress our yarn with. It was a slasher built by 
the Lowell Company. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind, if we 
had had pure water to make our steam which we heat with, the pipes 
would have lasted perhaps twenty years. It has been running about 
four years, and we are now replacing the pipes in that slasher. The 
pipes were all eaten up with rust. We never had any trouble with 
our pipes rusting from steam made from pure water. 

Q .—You carry on a farm, Mr. Simpson? A. —Yes, sir: I farm 
it some. 

Q . — Do you produce milk to sell? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Do your cows drink the water of Blackstone River? A. — 
They have : yes, sir. 

Q. — State your experience as to the effect upon the milk. A. — 
In 1879 our customers found fault with our milk. We mean to 


114 


average about a dozen cows to milk the } T ear round, to supply our 
customers; and in the fall of 1879 our customers found fault with our 
milk. The Blackstone River runs through my land. I own each side 
of the river : and I couldn’t think what could be the matter with them ; 
but I took them out from that place, and in ten or twelve days the 
trouble was removed. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) — Were they fed just the same? A. — 
Exactly. I never feed my cows any thing but corn-meal and hay : I 
have fed them with nothing else. I think that is the cheapest food 
there is to feed a cow. In 1880 I thought I would not pasture 
the cows where we mow, next the river; so I kept them on the upper 
land, and we had no trouble. In 1881 our land produced pretty 
good grass. We mow pretty much all we have got twice a year, and 
then we get pretty good feed afterwards. I thought I would try 
again, and see if I couldn’t have my cows eat that grass off, for more 
than one reason. It is good feed for our cows ; and the next year, if 
we do not have it eaten off, the dead grass makes bad cutting if it is 
not removed : and we pastured our cows there in 1881, and the same 
trouble came up again with our milk. We have regular customers 
who take our milk ; and they found fault, and gave up taking the 
milk. I went to work and fenced the river away from the cows each 
side, up and down, so that the cows could not get to the river. In 
two or three weeks we had no more trouble with our milk, and our 
milk is good to-day. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —What fault did your customers find with 
the milk? A .—Bad taste, and the milk would realty smell: small 
babies would not drink it. 

Q. — And you had to fence the river away from them ? A. — I 
fenced the river away from the cows, and the river stands to-day 
fenced on each side. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) — It seems your cows would drink the water 
of the river? A. — They had no other water to drink, sir: they were 
obliged to drink it. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) — Would they drink it right along? A. — 
I presume they did: they had nowhere else to go. I presume they 
did drink it. We had nowhere else to water them, when we pastured 
them there. 

Q. — Some of the witnesses have said that their cows, when starved 
into it, would not drink the water more than once in a day or two. 
Do you know how often your cows drank it? A. — I can’t say how 
often they did drink it. It was all the water they had when we pas¬ 
tured them in that place. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You have heard the testimony of others as 
to the ponds filling up, as to the smell from the river, and as to the 


115 


grass which grows in the river. Has your experience been the same 
as theirs? A. — Yes, sir, it has. 

Q . — Have you noticed a great change since 3-011 first came to Mill- 
bury in that respect? A. — Very much. 

Q. — What is 3-0ur opinion as to the effect upon the woollen business 
in the Blackstone Valle3' if this sewage continues to contaminate the 
river, and increase in quanta? A. —Oh! we must give it up; 
there is no doubt, we must give it up. If 3'ou will allow me, I will 
say that these water-powers, from Worcester awa3 T down to I should 
say Uxbridge, are not vey large powers. You might sa3 r , “Why 
not go to work and make cotton goods on those water-powers if we 
cannot make woollen? we have got to make something for a living.” 
The great trouble is, that those water-powers are too small for cotton- 
mills ; they will do for small woollen-mills, but the time has come 
when a small cotton-mill cannot live with the large ones. Then, 3-ou 
might sa3’, “ Wli3 T don’t 3 T ou run b3 r steam?” Fall River can buy 
coal about two dollars a ton cheaper than we can : that is the reason 
that we cannot compete with them, or with New Bedford, or aiy of 
those places. We are too far up in the countiy to run with steam, 
and compete with our neighbors. 

Q. —What is the distance from the mouth of the sewer at Quinsiga- 
mond to the State-line at Blackstone ? A. — Not far from twent3--four 
miles. I am not positive, but I should sa3 T twent3 T -four or twent3’-five 
miles. 

Q. — I have a map here on which are laid down all the dams, as I 
understand. First, Burling Mills dam; next, Morse’s dam; next, 
Atlanta dam ; next, Millbuiy dam ; next, Cordis dam ; next, Simp¬ 
son’s dam, —these are in Millbuiy. Then, in Sutton, Wilkinsonville 
dam ; in Grafton, Saundersville dam, Fisherville dam, Farnumsville 
dam ; in Northbridge, Rockdale dam and Riverdale dam ; in Uxbridge, 
the North Uxbridge dam, the Centerville dam, a place called Shank- 
bone dam, Millville dam, and Blackstone dam? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Seventeen in all? A. —Yes, sir: that includes all the dams 
there are on the Blackstone in Massachusetts, I believe. 

Q. — Those were all there were when 3 T ou came to Millbury ? A. — 
Yes, sir: I don’t think of any new dam built on the Blackstone River 
for the last forty 3-ears. Some of the dams have been repaired, and 
some of the old ones have been replaced b3 T new. No new water-power 
has been taken, to my knowledge, on the Blackstone River for the 
last forty-four years. 

Q . (By Dr. Wilson.)— I suppose 3-our wheel is iron, as you 
speak of its having corroded? A. —Yes, sir: a turbine wheel, so 
called. 

Q. — Have you any idea what caused it to corrode? A. —When 


116 


we used the water twenty years ago, or fifteen years ago, it did not 
corrode. We were using iron wheels then, as we do now. I take it 
for granted it is the impurity of the water: I don’t know of any 
thing else. 

Q. —Would sewage corrode it? or would it be more likely to be 
the acids, or any thing of that kind, used in manufacturing? A. — 
All I can say is, that the wheels do corrode. I don’t pretend to say 
what causes it. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Do you mean by 3 T our testimony 
that }’ou deducted five cents a 3 T ard for the damage to the cloth ? A. 
— We allowed five cents a 3 r ard on seventy thousand 3'ards of goods. 

Q. — Then, 3’ou allowed more than twenty-three dollars, didn’t 
3 t ou? A. — Yes, sir: some over twent3'-three hundred dollars. 

Q. — That is not five cents a 3’ard. I did not know but 3*011 meant 
that 3 T ou compromised for twenty-three hundred dollars, as seventy 
thousand 3'ards at five cents per 3 T ard would come to more than 
twent3 T -three hundred dollars. A. —The claim w^as for over twenty- 
three hundred dollars on that lot of goods. 

Q. — I understand 3 r ou that that w r as settled for twent3 r -three 
hundred dollars ; and 3’ou also said that there were sevent3 T thousand 
yards, and 3 t ou allowed five cents per yard, — what I want to know 
is, whether the claim was compromised for twenty-three hundred 
dollars? A. — I would sa3^, if 3 r ou will allow me, that there were a 
hundred cases in. that lot, some seventy thousand 3 T ards ; and my 
book-keeper tells me we had to allow twent3’-three hundred dollars. 
The goods were sold b3* Pomeroy & Palmer, so that it comes from 
good authority. 

Q. (B3 t Mr. Flagg.) —The term “low water” has been used a 
good many times. Will 3’ou explain what those who are familiar 
with the river understand b3 r “ low water” ? A. — It is at the time 
of 3 7 ear when we use all the water there is in the river. All the 
water there is in the Blackstone River will run through our wheels ; 
and then, as a matter of course, the water will not run throuah the 
bed of the river. Take the Burling Mills: their dam is some ways 
up from the mill; and the water will go down through their canal, 
and the bed of the river will be dry. Then, the people who live on 
the banks of that river will say it is low-water mark; when, if the 
same quantity of water ran through the bed of the river, it would show 
quite a stream, comparatively; but it is all used over the wheels, and 
the bed of the river would appear to be dry in that case. Several of 
our mills have dams placed in that position, — not so much right in 
Millbury. That is what they call “low water,” when they use all 
the water over the wheels. 

Q. —That is usually in the summer-time? A. —Yes, sir. 


117 


Q' — How many months? A. — Four or five months. Two years 
ago, it went into January. 

Q • — Tou w r ere present the day the Committee were there? A .— 
Yes, sir. 

Q • —What do you say as to the height of the water then? A. — 
I should think there was at least thirty times as much water as we 
can use with our present arrangement of wheels. 

Q • —How long since the river has been as high as it was that day? 
H. — I think it must have been five years ago. I think we took 
notice of it at our dam five years ago, and it was about as high as 
it was that day. Since that, I don’t think we have had so large a 
quantity at one time. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — How large is your mill? A. —We run 
four sets of woollen machinery at Millburv. 

Q • — What wmter do you use in your boilers? A. — From the 
Blackstone River. 

Q . — What water do you use for scouring? A. —From the Black- 
stone River. 

Q. —For all purposes, you use that water? A. —Yes, sir, we 
do. 

Q. —You have given the Committee a pretty full account of the 
troubles you have had with it? A .—Some of the troubles; yes, 
sir. 

Q. — Now, what quantity of chemicals does it require to do the 
scouring for your mill? A. —We scour our wool with sal-soda and 
soda-ash, — that is what we use to scour with. 

Q. —About what quantity? A. — Do you mean to be understood 
per a hundred pounds of wool? 

Q. —Put it in any way you have a mind to, so that we may know 
how much chemicals you use per da} 7 , per month, or per year? A. — 
I hardly know how to answer that. You have got me. Mr. Goul¬ 
ding never scoured much wool, I think. You take California wool, 
w T here they don’t get twenty pounds from a hundred pounds, and it 
will take more soda-ash than other wools will take. We can scour 
a hundred pounds of Ohio wool with five pounds of soda-ash. I 
don’t know how I can get at it. 

Mr. Goulding. I never scoured any wool. 

Witness. I did not suppose you had : if you had, you would not 
have asked me the question. 

Q. — You can answer the question, or you can state that it is not 
possible to answer it. A. — Now, you just put it, and I will see if 
I can answer it. 

Q. — What quantity of chemicals do you use per day, or per year, 


118 


or per month, or any other period that yon have a mind to select, in 
scouring your wool at your mill, as a matter of fact? A. —That is 
a pretty nice point. As I told you, if I scour greasy California wool, 
it will take twent} 7 pounds of soda-ash to get forty pounds of wool. 

Q .—Do you scour California wool, or don’t you? A. — I have 
scoured California wool: I told 3*011 I had. 

Q. —Then, it would seem that } r ou could tell how much chemicals 
you used? A .—When I scour California wool, I can tell you how 
much I use. If I scour Ohio wool, it won’t take twent} T -five per cent 
of alkali to scour it. 

Q. — Can’t you tell what proportion of the different kinds of wool 
you use, so that we can tell the quantity of chemicals that you do 
use, as a matter of fact, or what quantity you have used for the past 
five years? A. — I could if I had my books here. If 3*011 will wait 
until to-morrow, I will bring them down and tell } r ou. I want 30U to 
know exactl}*: I don’t want to dodge it. I can tell 3*011, we scour 
our wool: we don’t work an3 T grease. 

Q. — What do you do with the water in which 3*011 scour your wool, 
after it is scoured? A. —It passes down the Blackstone River. 

Q. — What kind of d3*estuffs do 3 r ou use in your mill in d3*eing 3*our 
wool? A. — We don’t color any wool at all: we work it all white. 

Q. — Have 3*011 ever colored wool? A. — Never. I have been 
there twenty 3*ears, and never colored a pound of wool. 

Q. — You don’t use an3 7 dyestuff, then? A. —Yes, sir: we use 
logwood. 

Q. — What do 3’ou use that for? A. —To burr d3*e. We stain 
our goods with it. 

Q. — How much chemicals do you use for the purpose of staining 
3 7 our wool? A. — I stain m3* goods, not the wool. 

Q . — How much do 3*011 use for that purpose? A. — Well, I should 
think we used a ton of extract of logwood per month : and we use half 
as much soda-ash as we do logwood. 

Q . — What is done with this dyestuff after it is used ? A. — It 
passes down the Blackstone River, sir. 

Q • — Do you use about the same quantity of chemicals for scouring 
that the other mills in Millbury do, in proportion to the size of your 
mill? A. — I presume so. 

Q • — All the woollen-mills in Millbury do scouring, of course? A. 
— You cannot make woollen goods without scouring the wool: it has 
all got to be washed. 

Q •—The water, after it is used for scouring, with the chemicals, 
passes down the river in all cases? A. —Yes, sir : as far as I know. 

Q •—You know about this matter as well as anybody, and I will 
ask you this question: How many mills are there in Millbury on the 


119 


Blackstone River, and on Singletary Brook? A. —Seven, I believe, 
in all; although I won’t be positive. 

Q ,—What is the size of those woollen-mills? A. — I think the 
largest one has eight sets. I won’t be positive. 

Q . — Yours has four ? A. — Five. 

Q . —How man} 7 of them are there as large as eight sets? A. —I 
think there is not but one : that is the Burling Mills. The Atlanta, 
I think, has four sets. 

Q . — How man}' has Mr. Lapham? A. —I think he has six. 

Q .—That is at Bramanville? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—How many has Mr. Walling? A. —I won’t be positive, but 
it strikes me it is six. 

Q. — How near to the Blackstone River do you reside? A .—I 
should say a quarter of a mile. 

Q. — Is it above Morse’s Mill, or below it? A. —I should say 
below it. 

Q. — You have a family? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you any aged grandmother? A. —No, sir : my grand¬ 
mother is dead. 

Q. — You have pretty good health yourself? A .—Very good: 
never saw a sick day in my life. 

Q. —You had a bullet shot into you a few years ago? A. —Yes, 
sir. You don’t call that sickness, for a man to be shot at, do you? 

Q. — You wrestled with it, and recovered? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—This Mr. Wilmarth, who died, how old a man was he? A. 
— Sixty. 

Q. — How long had he lived in that region? A. — He had been 
wdth me about four months. He came with me about the fore part of 
last December. 

Q .—You understood his sickness was typhoid fever? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — You spoke of Dr. Gage. Did Dr. Gage attend him? A .— 
We called him the last day, which was last Sunday. 

Q .—You first noticed this effect upon your milk in 1879? A .— 
In 1879, sir. 

Q. —You pastured your cows near the Blackstone, and they drank 
this water? A. — Yes, sir: they must have drank it, because they 
had nothing else. 

Q .—Was any analysis ever made of that milk? A .—No, there 
was not. 

Q .—You distribute your milk in Millbury to families around? 
A .—Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —The refuse from the use of those chemicals, 
as compared with the sewage, which is the worst for the water? A. 


120 


— You cannot get any smell from this. We intend to get all the 
life there is in the logwood, and all the other dyestuff, into our goods, 
if we can. We mean to throw away as little as possible. We do not 
put any more logwood into our dyestuffs than what our goods will 
take up. It will stain the w r ater. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Don’t you think that the water from 
those dyestuffs and scouring-macliines rather improves the river, 
than otherwise ? A. — Oh, no ! you cannot believe that, Mr. Goulding. 
What I wish to be understood is, that we mean to get all the color 
out of the dj’estuffs that we use into our goods, not into the river: 
that is what I mean to be understood. 

Q. (B} r Dr. Wilson.) —You say that the bad smell from the river 
caused that case of typhoid fever: why do } t ou say that? A. —Be¬ 
cause the doctor said so : that is all. 

Q .—Both doctors? A. —Both doctors. We had two doctors. I 
expect one of them will be here to-morrow. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — What doctor said so? A. —I wish I 
could remember his name. 

Q. — Dr. Maxwell? A. —Yes, sir; and Dr. Gage agreed with 
him. 

Q .—Did you hear Dr. Gage say so? A. — I did not: they so 
told me. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS HEAP. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —At Burling Mills? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — What is your business ? A. — Superintendent of Burling 
Mills. 

Q. — Flow long have } t ou been superintendent, at this time, of the 
Burling Mills? A. — Ever since the first of last September. 

Q. —Were you there previously ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —When? A. —Between seven and eight years ago. 

Q. — Will you state your experience with the water, when you 
were there previously, as to dj T eing? A. — We did not have much 
trouble with it at that time, although there were remarks made by the 
dyer that it was troubling him somewhat, but not a great deal. 

Q .—You succeeded, then, pretty well, in using it for d} r eing and 
scouring? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — What problem did you have presented to you when you came 
back as superintendent in ’81? Was the mill in trouble about its 
goods at that time ? A. —The mill was in trouble about its goods. 
They had somewhere about two hundred pieces in the finishing-room 
all stained. They w’anted me to find out what the trouble was. I 
went in there and examined the goods, smelt of them, and they smelt 


121 


bad: the white was turned yellow. In order to find out what was 
the cause of that, I went back to first principles. I took some wool 
and scoured it in clean spring water, and it came out all right and 
white. Then I took the same grade of wool, and scoured it in the 
Blackstone-river water, and I found that it turned out all 3 ’ellow. 
All the stuff that I could put to it, I couldn’t get it back: it seemed 
to be a fixed color of itself. Then 1 went into the d 3 ^e-house ; and 
I found that the dye-kettles had been standing there some few days 
with water in them from the river, and on the sides of the kettles 
was a yellow slime about half an inch thick, that smelt very bad. 
Then I went into the office and reported to Mr. Harrington and Mr. 
Barker, that, if they intended to run fancy cassimeres in that mill, 
they had got to get some water from somewhere : they couldn’t use 
the Blackstone River. I tried a few pieces, and it came out just the 
same as the pieces that were in the finishing-room. So we went to 
work and sunk artesian wells, and got over the trouble in the 
finishing-room by using that water. 

Q. — What would apply to the Burling Mills would apply to any 
other woollen-mill on the stream? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —You say the water would not be fit, as it is at present, to 
advantageously, at any rate, scour or dye woollen goods? A. —No, 
sir. 

Mr. Goulding. u Fanc} r cassimeres,” he said. A. —No, sir: 
that mill is a fancy cassimere mill. If we had taken the water of 
the Blackstone River, it would have been washed out of existence as 
a cassimere mill. 

Q. —Have the operatives in the mill complained to 3 ’ou? A .— 
In the finishing-room the 3 " have complained to me about the smell. 
I told them I would take measures to see if I couldn’t obviate it. 
I cut off the water-pipes that led into the finishing-room, and turned 
them into the flume. Then I boarded over the flume ; and that, in a 
measure, took away the smell, but not whoify', but so the 3 * could get 
along. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —The Burling Mills are stopped now, 
are the 3 T not? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — That is owned substantially by Turnbull & Co. of New York, 
is it not? A. — I don’t know. 

Q, —A very large amount of the goods that were manufactured 
are in their hands? A. —Tes, sir. 

Q. —It is not shut up for want of water to scour wool, I take it? 

A. —No, sir. 

Q. —How many artesian wells have you bored there? A. —Five. 

Q. — What does it cost to bore one ? A. — I cannot say. 


122 


Q. — How deep are they? A. —About twenty-nine feet. 

Q. — How do you do it? A. — Drive them. 

Q. —You get excellent water there, don’t you? Very good water. 

Q. — Very nice water indeed ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —And plent} r of it? A. —Well, that will be a matter of time 
to prove. 

Q. — So far? A. — So far, wc have. 

Q. — When was the first one sunk? A. —In September last. 

Q. —Was there not a well there before? A. —There was a well 
there, yes. 

Q. — Was that an artesian well ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — When was that sunk? A. — I cannot tell } r ou any thing 
about that. That was sunk before I went there the last time. 

Q. —Was it there when you were there the first time? A. — No, 
sir. 

Q. — It has been sunk since ’74, then? Yes< sir. 

Q. —And there is a supply of water from that? A .—Well, at 
that time they did not seem to think that that well was worth any 
thing: so I had them apply a force-pump, to see if we could exhaust 
the well; and I found we couldn’t. So I used that for finishing pur¬ 
poses. 

Q. — That is good water? A. —That is good water. 

Q. —And you could not exhaust the supply? A. —We couldn’t 
at that time, nor we haven’t since we have been running. 

Q. —You have tried more than once to exhaust it? A. —We 
have been running it ever since w^e tried to exhaust it. 

Q. — So far as appears, it is inexhaustible? A. —It seems so 
now. 

Q. — And that is true of the other wells that have been sunk since, 
so far as they appear now? A. —Yes, sir. 

Re-direct Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You say that you do not know that the 
mill is closed on account of the impurity of the water? A. — I don’t 
know any thing about it at all. 

Q .—The impurity of the water has been a great damage to its 
business, has it not? A. — r It has been a great damage to the busi¬ 
ness. 

Q. —You don’t know why it is closed, I suppose? A. — No. 

Q. — Are you familiar with the Atlanta Mills? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Can artesian wells be driven there? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Why not? A. — It is built on a ledge. 

Q. — Is there the same trouble with the water there? A. — There 
s the same trouble in summer-time, more than they have now. Last 


123 


summer we had a few pieces spoiled at the Atlanta Mills, on account 
of the water making the goods yellow. 

Be-cross. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Have you an}’ knowledge of chemistry, 
so as to understand what it is that produces this effect? what the 
chemical ingredients in the water are that produce this effect on the 
wool? A. — Well, when I was there before, we didn’t have this 
effect; but since I have come back this time we have this trouble, 
and I should say it arose from the sewage. 

Q. — I know }’Ou would say so, because you come from Millbury ; 
but my question was, whether you have any chemical knowledge, so 
as to know the chemical ingredients that cause the effect? A. — I 
don’t pretend to be an analytical chemist. All I can judge from is 
the smell. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Have you such a nose, Mr. Heap, that you 
can recognize the smell in the goods? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — Do you dye your wools at the mill? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Do you know what quantit} 7 of dyestuffs you use per week? 
A. —Well, I can’t sa} 7 any thing about that. It depends upon the 
color we are making. Some colors require more than others. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GEGENHEIMER. 

. Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury, Mr. Gegenheimer? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you lived there? A. — Seven years the 
thirty-first day of this month. 

Q. — What is your business? A. —lam superintendent of the 
Cordis Mills at the present time. 

Q. — State where the Cordis Mills are situated. Are they the 
next mills below the Millbury Cotton-Mills? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — In the lower part Millbury Village ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have } r ou been at the Cordis Mills, and familiar 
with them? A. — Ever since I have been in the town. 

Q. — Who was the agent who preceded } 7 ou? A. — Mr. B. B. 

Howard. 

Q, _Will 3 7 ou state } 7 our experience there with the Blackstone- 

river water? A. — At the time I went there, seven years ago, I 
went there to take the time in the finishing or cloth room. At that 
time all the water we had to usd throughout the mill, for any pur¬ 
pose whatever, was taken from our pond, back of the mill, which is 
supplied by the Blackstone River. Very soon after that, there began 




124 


to be complaints of our goods. We were on ticking, and they com¬ 
plained of our whites being a very dirty r 3 T ellow ; so much so that Mr. 
Howard had to take some means to remedy it. To do this, he dug a 
well in the yard, and pumped out of that into a tank in the attic, and 
used that for sizing purposes; and the next } T ear, or the year after, 
they complained of that also ; and Mr. Howard was at a loss what 
to do. Finally, he had some of the water analyzed by Professor 
Thompson of Worcester, with the result which I think you have, or 
had here, at the last hearing; and he had to give up the use of that 
well, and had some driven wells put in, that we are now using; so 
that the water that we use in our sizing comes from those driven 
wells. Two years ago he reset his boilers, and put in two new ones ; 
and we had no facilities for feeding those, only from the river-water; 
and it had become so filthy, they had to blow them off two or three 
times a week partially, and every two weeks wholly; and he thought 
that was rather expensive. And a j T ear ago last June, I think, he put 
in a new engine, and put in a heater in combination with that; and 
the water was so dirty r , that the past season he was induced to put in 
a Crocker water-filter, to filter water for the boilers ; and we are 
now running that filter. The water in our boilers that we use in our 
sizing comes from these driven wells. You have samples of the 
sediment and stuff that we got out of the filter: you can see what we 
take out. 

Q. — I see here a sample labelled “Feb. 14, 1882. Washings of 
filter after running one hour, with twenty-five strokes per minute at 
the pump.” Will you take that, and explain it to the Committee? 
A. —We clean out our filter, when the water is very bad, every hour. 
It has a reversible cage on the inside, filled with animal charcoal; 
and, by reversing and starting the pump, we force the water right 
through ; and it forces out this sediment and stuff through the waste- 
pipe, and that was collected in a barrel; and then the top-water that 
was used in washing it out was filtered off, and that is the sediment. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —That is the sediment of the barrel? A. 
— The sediment of the water that went into the barrel, in washing 
out the filter. The barrel was about half-full. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Is that a fair sample of what was collected 
in the filter? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q . — Explain those other, samples, if you please. A. —There is 
a sample that was taken in the same way, with the pump running 
only ten minutes. Of course it doesn’t show as large a proportion of 
sediment, but the character of the sediment is just the same. There 
is one in a smaller bottle that was taken the day after, on the fifteenth 
day of February. It shows a large proportion of sediment. The 
washings were drained into a larger vessel; and then the* clearest 


125 


water was siphoned off, so as to preserve the sediment. I won’t ask 
3 r ou to smell it, because I don’t think you would like it. It is the 
concentrated essence. It is a fair specimen of what we get in the 
summer season. There is a specimen that was taken yesterday after¬ 
noon from our filter: I had our engineer catch that. Here is one 
that was taken Feb. 1 . 

Q . — State generally, Mr. Gfegenheimer, whether these are fair 
samples of what the filter takes out of the water. A. — They are, 
sir. 

Q. — What is your opinion and your experience as to the effect of 
this water upon the general health of the operatives? A. —Well, I 
don’t know. We think it is necessary, to get a fair average in each 
department, in every room, to keep several spare hands. We have 
been driven up with our work, and have tried to keep all of our 
machinery running eveiy day. In order to do this, we have to keep 
several spare hands in each department, to take the places of those 
who are out from day to day, from any cause whatever. Very often 
our overseers come to me in the morning, and say that they are short: 
such a hand is out. “ What is the matter? ” — “I don’t know : they 
are sick.” 

Q. —You have heard the testimony of the other witnesses as to 
the smell of the water, its appearance, and the filling up of the ponds. 
Do you agree with what they have said? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.)—M r. Chamberlain, who is a prohibi¬ 
tionist, wants me to ask if there are more out on Monday than 
other days. A. —I don’t think there are. They are mostly women 
and children, who are not that kind of help. 

Cross-Examincit io n . 

Q. (By Mr. G-oulding.)—D o you know whether there are any 
other filters in Millbury, at any of the other mills? A. —I don’t 
know, sir. 

Q. — Up at Bramanville or elsewhere? A. —I have heard that 
Mr. Rhodes was using a filter; but what it is, or how it works, I 
don’t know. 

Q. — Where is his mill? A. — That is the first mill on the Single¬ 
tary Stream, as you go up. I have heard that they had a sort of 
filter rigged up in a barrel. I can’t give you any description of it, 
or tell 3 ’ou an 3 r thing definite about it. 

Q. — Did 3^011 understand what they filtered the water for,— 
whether it was for the boiler, or what? A. —No, sir : I don’t know 
any thing at all as regards it. I never saw it, or made any inquiries. 

Q. — I understand that what is in these bottles was procured by 
reversing your filters? A. — Reversing the cage on the inside, that 
contains the charcoal. 


12G 


Q. — How long does it take to clean the filter when you do that? 
A. —I should say from three to five minutes, perhaps. 

Q. — And that produces how much water? A. — I should say it 
takes, perhaps, from twenty to fort} 7 gallons to wash out the sediment 
that collects there. 

Q. — And clean the filter? A. — And clean the filter ; }~es, sir. 

Q. —From twenty to forty gallons? A. — I should say so ; there¬ 
abouts. 

Q. —These specimens were procured b} 7 letting it run a certain 
length of time, and then cleaning it, and some of these smaller bottles 
are the settlings of that result? A. — That one that was run an hour 
was procured by saving the washings of the filter in a barrel, catch¬ 
ing them as they came from the waste-pipe in a barrel, and letting 
them set, and then drawing off the top of the water so as to save the 
sediment. The others were caught simply by holding a pail under 
the waste-pipe as the water ran out, and catching a pailful of the 
water, sediment and eveiy thing, and then let it settle. The small 
bottle contains the sediment and every thing, just as it was caught 
running from the waste-pipe. 

Q .—As I understand, what is in this bottle was taken from the 
waste-pipe without allowing it to settle at all? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How was it with the other bottle? A. — The washings of 
the filter were collected in a barrel, and then allowed to settle, so as 
to leave onlj' that quantity 7 of water and sediment. 

Q. — How much water was in the barrel? A. — At the time this 
Februaiy 14th specimen was taken, we measured the water as we took 
it off, and there were twenty-one gallons. 

Q. —Leaving this as the residuum? A. —No, sir: counting that 
in with the twenty-one gallons. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —How much does that bottle hold? A. — 
About a pailful. We call them ten-quart pails. 

Q. — How was that bottle obtained? [No. 3.] A. —That.is 
what was caught in the pail and allowed to settle; then the water 
was drawn off, so as to get what went into that bottle. 

Q. —You mean that that is the sediment from a pailful of water? 
A. — A pailful as it runs from our filter. When the filter is turned 
over, the water begins to come clear; then there comes a dark sedi¬ 
ment, and then it gradually comes clearer, and our engineer lets it 
run until it becomes graduall}’ clear. 

Q •—You caught a pailful of water from the filter? A .—Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — Then what did you do? A. — We let it settle until there 
was what is in that bottle in the pail, and the rest we threw away. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — How many hands do you employ in that 
mill? A. — About a hundred and sixt}\ 


127 


Q • — How man}' spare hands do you employ? A. —Well, we 
have from two to three in each department. There are three depart¬ 
ments. In addition to that, we have in our weaving department, for 
our looms, — we have quite a number of hands who live in our tene¬ 
ments. Parts of the families are at work in the mill, and there are 
others who come in occasionally for a day, or two or three days, if 
they are needed to help us out. All we have to do is to send out and 
tell them that we want them, and they come in. 

Q. —Do your employes live near the mill? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —That is the custom with all mills everywhere, is it not, to 
have some spare hands? A. — I think it is, sir. 

Q. —Do you know whether there are any larger number at your 
mill than is usual at other mills ? A. — I think we have, perhaps, 
full as large a proportion as ordinary, on account of running all our 
machinery. We intend to keep all our machinery running every 

day. 

%/ 

Q. —Do you think you have any larger proportion of spare hands 
than other mills similarly situated, which intend to run all their ma¬ 
chinery? A. — I can’t tell you any thing definite. 

Q .—You don’t mean to say that you do? A. — I don’t know 
whether we do or not. I can’t say. I have not had that experience, 
or had a chance for observation to know. 

Q . (By Mr. Smith.)— I would like to ask the gentleman if his 
goods are in demand? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .— Then the quality of the goods has not been unfavorably 
affected by the water of the river? A. —It has, at two or three dif¬ 
ferent times, very unfavorably, so much so that we have been obliged 
to go to the expense of driving wells, and getting pumps, and digging 
wells, and putting in tanks, and every thing of that kind, in order to 
keep up and sustain the reputation of our goods. 

Q. — And yet you have kept it up, so that your goods are in 
demand, and meets the wants of the market as well as other goods of 
the same character made by other mills? A. — I can’t say as to 
how other mills are, but only with reference to our own. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —You are very busy all the time? A. — 
Yes, sir : our mill is small. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — I have here the result of an analysis of 
that well-water, which shows that it contains one-hundredth of one 
per cent of free ammonia, seven-hundredths of one per cent of albu¬ 
minoids ; other impurities in small quantities. Is that analysis 
as you remember it? A. — I cannot speak with any degree of 
certainty in regard to the analysis, for at that time I was not in a 
position to know much about it. I saw the analysis at the time it 
was sent in to Mr. Howard, and have not seen it since. It came 


\ 




128 

down here, and at that time I had not thought of ever coming here 
to testify to any thing of that kind. 

Mr. Flagg. I understand the counsel on the other side to admit 
that that was the analysis. 

Q. — How far from the river was the water that was analyzed 
taken ? A. — I should say about seventy-five or eight}' feet. I 
don’t know : I never saw it measured, or knew of its being measured. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Since you sunk those wells and got this 
new supply of water, are you suffering from an}' trouble, as far as 
washing the goods is concerned? A. —You understand that our 
goods are cotton goods, and are not washed. The water where we 
had the trouble was in our dye-house, in making our dyes, and in our 
sizing. 

Q .—You do not have any trouble now, since you have got those 
wells? A. — Comparatively we do not have so much ; but the w r ater 
from those wells is put into a tank in the attic of one of our mills, 
and we have to clean out the tank very often, and take pains to keep 
it clean, in order to get along there as we do. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —By whom are those mills owned now? 
A. —They are owned by a corporation. Bliss, Fabyan, & Co. are 
the selling agents. 

Q .—Is this getting of pure water attended with much expense? 
A. —The expense of pumping, and the expense of power. 

Q .—-About how much? A. —I am not prepared to say. The 
pump is attached to our shafting in the mill; and about how much 
power it takes, I have no idea. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) — Is it steam-power? A. —We have 
both steam-power and water-power. We run the steam-engine all 
the time in connection with our wells. 

Q. —Is this pump run by steam-power or water-power? A. — By 
both. The wheels and engine are connected together. 

Q. —Whichever you happen to be running, I suppose? A. —We 
run them both all the time. 

Q. — Both steam and water? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q . —Then, it takes no extra steam to run that pump when you are 
using steam? A. —Well, it must take some, because it must take 
power to run the pump ; and, if the pump was not running, the steam 
would be shut off from our engine, because our engine does the regu¬ 
lating. When we start in the morning, we hoist our gates wide open, 
and let the engine make up what is lost; and any steam that is 
thrown off or on during the day comes off or on our engine practi¬ 
cally. 




129 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT A. PRATT. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — You live where, Mr. Pratt? A. — Worces¬ 
ter. 

Q‘ —What is your business? A. — Civil engineer. 

Q -—You are familiar with the pond near Morse’s Mill in Mill- 
bury ? A. — I made a survey of that pond. 

Q • —At whose request? A. — Mr. Morse’s. 

Q -—When was this? A. —The survey was made in March, 

1881. 

Q. — State what survey you made. A. — I made a survey of the 
pond there, and of the manufacturing property as a whole, looking at 
the pond and the buildings. 

Q • — Is this the plan you made? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q • — Now, will 3 t ou state to the Committee what the result of your 
survey showed? A. — The survey shows the reservoir and buildings. 
This line through here represents the general course of the Black- 
stone as it is at present. These spots that are colored, and marked 
“ deposit,” are the spots appearing upon the surface of the water, to 
be seen. These points are on a level with the surface of the reservoir, 
or above it. This dark line running down here, on each side of the 
stream, and running across here, is a line marking the average line 
of deposit. I made soundings all through here, going over it, since 
making the survey, in a boat. I found the general depth of that 
stream, below the surface of the water, to be eight feet, striking what 
appeared to be a gravel bottom. Through here, and outside of 
that line, I found the greatest depth to be five feet, striking what 
appeared to be a gravel bottom. From this point, running up here, 
I found it varied from five feet, running up to the level of the surface 
of the pond. I found that to be the case through this line ; and follow¬ 
ing along Ring Island, as it is called, I found that to be somewhat 
less than five feet; and through here, following along that island, I 
got the general depth of five feet. As I went out towards the bank, 
it grew less. That whole spot marked there as “deposit” is cov¬ 
ered with a rank growth. I do not know what it is : I never saw any 
thing like it before. This outline is an exact survey, made last 
March, of the reservoir, as it was found, — the high-water line. 

Q. — About what is the area of the whole pond ? A. — About 
thirty-two and a half acres. That does not include Ring Island. 

Q. — What part of that area appears to be filling up with this de¬ 
posit? A. — Passing that area upon this line, as shown here, and 
following that line out until it strikes high-water mark, there is an 
area in there, above those portions marked as “ deposits,” showing on 
the surface of the water of eleven acres. 


130 


Q. — That is, there are eleven acres of deposit that shows above 
the surface of the water? A. — No, sir: it reaches from this point 
where I got my five feet, running up to a level with the surface of the 
water. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —What are we to understand about that 
eleven acres? I am not quite clear about that. A. — Those two 
points are not included in this area of eleven acres. 

Q. — Eleven acres, then, of that area shows deposits not reaching 
the surface, from various depths to near the surface? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Which are the eleven acres? A. —That 
portion along west of that line there, following the general course of 
the stream until it reaches the bank: this line the same, lying west 
of that, up to this point here, the limit of the survey. That does 
not include the natural islands, apparentl}’, found there, and those 
three portions colored in. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You say that the eleven acres are either 
wholly or partially filled up? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — And you assume that the natural pond will be gradually filled 
until it is entirely covered ? A. —With this King Island, which is 
hard land, lying there, I do not see how it can be otherwise. The 
current tends that wa}\ That little colored spot there is covered 
with a growth of alders. 

Q. —There is a deposit in there, above the water? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — What portion of the other part of the pond appears to be 
filled up with deposits ? A. — At high water, until it strikes high 
water on the bank there, not including that large deposit, there is an 
area in there of 2.15 acres, or about that. In following this line out, 
not including those marked “deposits,” and that natural island, 
there is an area of about four and a half acres, more or less filled. 

Q. —Tell the Committee how you know.this is a deposit. A .— 
Well, from the soundings that I made. 

Q. —Through the deposit? A. — Through the deposit, until I 
reached what appeared to be a hard gravel. 

Q. —What was the nature of the deposit? A. —I don’t know 
that I can answer that question ; but it appeared to be a filling. In 
making the soundings, it gave forth a very unpleasant odor. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —What sort of odor? A. — l don’t know 
that I can answer that exactly. 

Q. (B}^ Mr. Flagg.) —An offensive odor reminding you of cess¬ 
pool odor? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you any doubt in your mind that that is the result of 
Worcester sewage? A. —To a great extent, it unquestionably is. 

Q. — Is the deposit also made up of a quick growth of weeds, 


131 


which accumulate there? A. —Yes, sir: in most cases I found a 
quick growth, wherever it reaches the surface; and over a large por¬ 
tion of this, at the time the surveys were made, and later, — over a 
large portion of this there is a rank growth of weeds, which now 
shows upon the surface. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —You cannot tell what weeds? A. — No, 
sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Do you recognize these photographs? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Do they show the growth of which 3 T ou speak and the places 
where the deposit aj)pears above the surface? A. —They do, very 
clearly. 

Cross- Exa m ination . 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Have }x>u undertaken to give the depth 
of this deposit from the natural surface of the ground? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How deep is the deposit on the average? A. —It would vary 
in different parts of the reservoir. 

Q. — Between what extremes would it vary? A. —There might 
possibly be an average, covering the entire reservoir, of eighteen 
inches or two feet. 

Q. —In the deepest place, how deep is this deposit? A. — There 
are places where it is four or five feet deep. 

Q. — Did }'ou explore the qualit 3 ” of this deposit, clear to its bot¬ 
tom, in these deep places? A. —I did, at a number of them. 

Q. — Was the deposit substantially of the same material at the 
various places? A. —I considered it such. 

Q. — Has it been subjected to an 3 r chemical anah T sis, to 3 'our knowl¬ 
edge? A. — Not so far as I know. 

Q. —Did 3 'ou get any specimens of it? A. —I did not. 

Q. — Have 3 'ou an 3 ^ information as to the length of time required 
to make a deposit of that sort, four feet deep, in such a pond as that? 
A. —I can’t say that I have. I was not asked to prepare m 3 T self on 
an}’ such question. 

Q. —Now, with regard to this vegetable growth : did that grow in 
the water, or on that part of the deposit which was above the sur¬ 
face? A. — In both. 

Q. — Where it grew in the water, how deep was the water? A. — 
About eighteen inches below the surface, or less than that; perhaps 
not more than twelve. 

Q, — Then, it would grow in places where the water was not deeper 
than eighteen inches? A. — It showed on the surface only at that 
depth. 

Q. — Did it grow where the water was deeper? A .—I cannot 
answer that question positively. 


132 


Q. —Was there a deposit in the vicinity of the mill? A. —It was 
less as you approached the mill, — less in quantity and depth. 

Q. — How long have you known that pond, — that is, how long 
have 3 t ou observed particularly these characteristics ? A. — About 
twelve years. 

Q. —You observed these places where the deposit, as you call it, 
was above the surface, as long ago as that? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Did you notice whether they were there or not at that time ? 
A. —I can’t say. 

Q. —What has this Ring Island to do with the deposits? I ob¬ 
served that you connected that in your answer to the question as to 
the tendency to fill up. A. —It would form a barrier in the direc¬ 
tion of the general current; and, as it extends nearly across a portion 
of the reservoir, it would aid in the filling up. 

Q. —It is not an unusual thing, is it, to find deposits in a pond 
raised by damming a stream? A. —There is always some deposit. 

Q. — On both sides of the channel? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—Have you ever had occasion to examine any other ponds or 
reservoirs, the deposits to be found in the different parts, and the 
amount and depth of such deposits? A. —Within the last thirteen 
years, I have made surve3 T s of a large portion of the reservoirs on 
ponds extending from Millbury as far as what is called, or was at 
that time, the Leicester Water-Power Compan3 T . I have never found 
aity thing filled to that extent, or in which there was any such odor 
or smell. 

Q. — That was not the question I asked you ; but it was whether 
you had made any other surve3's with reference to determining the 
extent and character of the deposits in other ponds? A. — I have 
made soundings. 

Q. —For that purpose? A. — No, sir: not for that purpose. I 
* have made soundings in other ponds to ascertain the condition of the 
bottom. 

Re-direct Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — If those deposits that you found in other 
ponds had been of the same nature as those you found in this pond, 
you would have noticed it, even if you had not been on the lookout 
for it? A. —If there had been such an offensive smell as there was 
in taking the soundings in this reservoir, I should, most certainly. 

Q. — Lou say that it is true that rivers that are dammed alwa3 r s 
collect some deposits. You do not mean to say deposits of this 
nature, unless there is something of the nature of sewage there, do 
3 7 ou? A. — No, sir. 

Q.—A clear stream dammed would not furnish such a deposit as 
this? A. —Not of that nature. 


IBB 


Q. (By Dr. Harris.) —You say you noticed an odor in those de¬ 
posits. Can you describe the character of the odor in any way, — 
what it was like? A. — It was very offensive, and such as would be 
noticed in connection with a cesspool. 

Q '—What you would term a cesspool odor? A. — Yes, sir, I 
should. I don’t know as I can give a better answer than that. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES WHITWORTH. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury, Mr. Whitworth? 
A. —I do. 

Q .—How long have you lived in Millbury? A. — Nearly nine 
years. 

Q‘ — Where is your house in reference to the river? A. —About 

V 

ten or fourteen rods from the river. 

Q- — In what part of Millbury? A. — In the north part, on the 
Worcester road. 

Q . — In reference to the Burling Mills, where is it? A. —About 
a mile below the Burling Mills. 

Q •—Where do you work? A. —I work for C. D. Morse & 
Co. 

Q. — How far from your house is that establishment ? A. — By 
the river, a quarter of a mile probably. 

Q. — Had you been accustomed to go from }’our house to your 
work by boat? A. — Yes, sir: two years next May, a man who 
lives in the same house with me, and I, got a boat; and, as we worked 
down at the blind and sash shop, we thought it would be a saving of 
time in going to the shop if we got a boat, and went down by the 
river, as it was a nearer way than b} r the road. We got this boat, 
and sailed to and from our work for about six weeks ; and then we 
were obliged to discontinue it on account of the stench of the river, 
and since that time we have never used it. That was the reason 
why we discontinued it. 

Q. — Now, what can you say as to the effect upon the health of 
either yourself or those who went with you on the river? A. —Well, 
I thought at that time I suffered from its effects. 

Q. — In what way did you feel the effects ? A. — I was troubled a 
good deal with headache, and a general feeling of weakness and las¬ 
situde ; and I attributed it at that time to the effects of the odor from 
the river. In addition to that, the same summer I took my little boy 
and sailed up the river about a quarter of a mile, towards Burling 
Mills ; and in using my oars I stirred up the water some, and such 
was the odor arising from it that I had to return. I could not pro¬ 
ceed any farther, so disagreeable was the odor from the water. 


134 


Q. — When was that? A. —The same } r ear, 1880. 

Q. —How long have you been familiar with this pond? A. — 
Ever since I came to town : about nine years. 

Q. — You have heard the testimony as to its filling up? A. —I 
have. 

Q. —You see the map opposite? A. — I have not seen the map. 

Q. —You now see it; and what do you say as to its filling up? 
Have you noticed its doing so? A. — Yes, sir: I know it is filling 
up. I know, without looking at the map at all, from my own obser¬ 
vation, that it is filling up; because the water is more shallow than 
it was when I went there, nine years ago. 

Q. — Have you noticed the nature of the deposit with which it is 
filling? A. —Not particularly: only I know it is mud, and smells 
badly. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —What month was this in the year 1880 
that you tried to row on the river, and couldn’t? A. —That was in 
the month of July. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What is } T our age. A. — My age is 
forty-seven. 

Q. —You live how far from the river? A. —About ten or twelve 
rods. 

Q. —What does your family consist of? A. — I have three chil¬ 
dren and a wife. 

Q. —What are the ages of your children? A. — My oldest is 
seventeen, the next is eight, and the youngest four. 

Q. —Do they all live at home? A. —They all live at home. 

Q. —Is the oldest a girl or a boy? A. — Girl. 

Q. —How long have you lived in that house? A. —About four 
years. 

Q. —Where did you live before that? A. —I lived down near 
the sash and blind shop. 

Q . — Near the pond ? A. — Nearer the shop : not so near the pond 
as I am now. 

Q. —It was in July that you started out with your little boy to row 
on the river, and returned : now, how long before that was it that 
you undertook to sail to and from your work? A. — About the 
beginning of May. 

Q. — And continued it how long? A. — A few weeks; six or 
eight weeks probably. 

Q. — Who was your conpanion? A. —A man by the name of 
Packard, who lives in the same house I do, — lives in the other half 
of the house. I may say that he continued to go alone perhaps a few 


135 


» 

days after I discontinued it. He was a stronger man than I was, and 
could stand it better ; but I discontinued it on that account. 

Q •—Did he discontinue it on that account? A. — I don’t know 
whether he did or not; but I did. 

Q -—How long did he continue it after you discontinued it? A. 
— For some little time ; perhaps not more than a week or two prob¬ 
ably. 

Q> —Did 3 t ou own the boat jointly? A. —It belonged to another 
man; but, as he didn’t want to use it on the river, he gave us the 
privilege of using it; and we laid out some expense, and fitted it up, 
and used it. 

Re-direct. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Were any of those parties who were ac¬ 
customed to boat on the river made sick so as to send for medical 
advice? A. —Yes, sir: I believe there was one man made sick, 
who used to sail upon the river as we did. He was a well man, and 
lived a little higher up the river than we did; and he was taken sick. 

Q. —What medical advice did he take? A. — He consulted Dr. 
Gates or Dr. Gage of Worcester. I am not sure about the name : I 
know it is either one or the other. 

Q. — Do you know what the doctor told him? A. — He asked 
him where he lived, and he told him; and he also told him that he 
' went to his work in a boat eveiy day and returned. And Dr. Gage 
told him that he was to discontinue that, and leave the river, and not 
to use it any more. He said it was not fit for either him or anybody 
else to use in that way : and he had to discontinue it; and the man 
is now as healthy as I am, perhaps more so. 

Q .—When was this? A .—That was the same j T ear, I believe, 
1880. 

Q. — Who was the man? A. —His name is Joseph Gendreau, a 
Frenchman. 

Q. (Bj^ the Chairman.) —Did you get the story from him, or how 
do 3 ’ou know the doctor said that? A. —He told me himself. 

Q. — The man told you ? A. — The man. I might say, that we 
worked together. We are on very intimate terms, and are neighbors ; 
and he told me that. 

' Re-cross. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —When was it 3 t ou say he went to Dr. 
Gage? A. —If I mistake not, it was the latter end of 1880, or the 
fall, rather, — somewhere round about there : I don’t know. 

Q. — Where did he live, in what house ? A. — He lived in a 
house about ten or fifteen rods away from the river; nearer the river 
than I do. 

Q. — How long was he sick at that time ? A. — Oh ! three or four 
months. 


186 


Q. —Was he away from his work all that time? A. He was 
away from his work a considerable part of it. 

Q. —You mean he was away from his work nearly three or foui 
months, or off and on during three or four months? A. Ofl and on. 

Q. — Ailing? A .—Ailing. 

Q. — He went and had this consultation with the doctor, and re¬ 
peated to you what you say? A. — He did. 

Q. — And he followed the directions of the doctor, and got well? 
A. — He followed the directions of the doctor so far as discontinu¬ 
ing boating. 

Q. —And he got well, you say? A. — He got well. 

Q. — And remained well? A. —He is well now, as far as I know. 

Q. — Does he live in the same place? A. —No, sir. 

Q .— How long did he live where he was living at that time? A. 
— Only a few months, as near as my memory serves me. 

Q. — That is, you mean he lived there only a few months after he 
got well? A. — He lived there a few months after he got well. 

Q. — Where did he go then? A. — He went a little lower down 
the river, just opposite where I live. 

Q. — How near the river? A. — About as near as before. 

Q. — He has been living there ever since? A. — He has lived 
there ever since. 

Q. — He is perfectly well now ? A. — Seems to be. 

Q. — Rowing did not agree with him? A. — Rowing did not agree 
with him, I suppose. 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY L. BANCROFT. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have }’ou lived there? A. — I was born in Mill¬ 
bury. It has alwa}’S been ni} T place of residence. 

Q. — You have been familiar with town affairs, and matters about 
town generally? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — You were a member of the State Senate of ’76? A. — ’73 
and ’74, sir, I believe. 

Q. —You were moderator of the town-meeting in ’74, and ap¬ 
pointed a committee on this matter of the pollution of the Blackstone 
River by the Worcester system of sewerage, did you not? A. —I 
have been moderator of the town-meeting, and I presume I might 
have been that year. 

Q. — You don’t remember that you were that year? A. — I can¬ 
not testify as to that particular year. I presume it was so. I re¬ 
member appointing such a committee in some year. I have kept no 
dates. Mr. Flagg has been moderator some of the time, and myself: 
we have been so for a great many years. 


137 


Q. — Whatever committee 3 t ou appointed, you appointed looking 
out for the interests of the town generalty, didn’t you, and not of the 
few manufacturers? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q . — Your business has been what? A. —My business in the 
early part of my life was mill-work, — about water-wheels and flumes, 
and has been for several years past. 

Q. — And you have become familiar with the flumes of the different 
mills along the Blackstone? A. —Yes, sir, quite extensively: that 
is, quite a large number of them. 

Q. — Have you any hesitation in saying, from } T our experience, that 
in Millbury the river is in such a state of pollution as to be detrimental 
to health and business both? A. —I should think there could not be 
any doubt on that question at all. 

Q. — And there is a general fear in the community as to its effect 
upon health, is there not? A. —Yes, sir, a general fear. 

Q. — Have you made 3 r ourself familiar with the stream above the 
mouth of the sewer, and its manufactories, and what was done on 
those mill privileges in 1870 and 1880? A. —Yes, sir. At the re¬ 
quest of this committee, I have been through these different streams 
and mills. 

Q. — Whether the difference in business that is carried on there 
to-da 3 r from what it was in 1870, if there is any difference, tends to 
purif 3 r the streams forming the Blackstone above Worcester? A. — 
So far as the mills for fabrics are concerned, those manufactories 
which have been spoken of, cotton and woollen mills, the amount of 
business done is less than it was in 1870. 

Q. — From 3 T our familiarity with the mills, can you say whether or 
not the pollution is probably less ? A. — The pollution would be 
considerabl 3 T less. 

Q. —Have 3 *ou prepared a list of those mills? A. — Yes, sir. 
[Paper produced.] 

Q .—This statement was prepared under your direction? A .— 
Yes, sir. 

Q .—And from data which you satisfied 3 T ourself were true? A, 
— Yes, sir. 

Q. — State generally what the paper shows. A. — It is intended 
to show the amount of business done at the different privileges above 
Millbury and in Millbury — that is, on the streams that enter the 
Blackstone River — in 1870, and about the amount in 1880 and since. 

Q. — Those mills are all above the mouth of the sewer? A. — No, 
sir: those that are on the Singletary Stream are not above the mouth 
of the sewer. 

Q. — This includes also Bramanville, does it? A. — Yes, sir: I 
think it does. 


138 


Q .—There is a distinct part of it relating to the mills above the 
mouth of the sewer? A .— Yes, sir: on Kettle Brook and Mill 
Brook. 

Q. — Now, whether or not that paper shows that the number of 
sets and the amount of business is less, and whether you would infer, 
being familiar with business of that kind, that from manufactories the 
pollution was less in 1880 than it was in 1870? A. — Yes, sir. 


Name of Company. 


1870 . 


1880 . 


Kettle Brook Stream. 


44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 


44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 


Ramshorn Stream 1 . 

44 44 

44 44 


Kettle Brook Stream . 

<< << 

Tatnuck Stream . 
Kettle Brook Stream. 

<< <( 


Mill Brook . 

44 

44 


First privilege on 
stream 

Mann’s woollen-mill . 


Kents . 

Cherry Valley Manu¬ 
facturing Co. . 

S. Pratt & Co. 

E. Collier, satinets 
Olney, formerly S. L. 
Hodges . 


J. A. Smith 


W. Bottomly, satinets, 
Ashworth & Jones, 
heavers 

Darling, satinets 

J. A. Hunt, satinets . 

Cunningham, satinets, 
B. James, fancy cassi- 
meres 


Stoneville, cotton 
E. Hoyle 


Griggs 

B. Lamed, satinets 


Trowhridgeville, sati¬ 
nets .... 

Albert Curtis, satinets, 

-, satinets . 

Hopeville Manufac¬ 
turing Co. 

South Worcester Car¬ 
pet Co. 

Water Street, woollen, 

Fox Mill, fancy . 

Adriatic Mills 


Totals 


Saw-mill 

2 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

Shoddy-mill 

4 sets, fancy, with 
scouring and coloring, 

2 sets, satinet, with 
scouring and coloring, 

1 set, with scouring 
and coloring . 

5 sets, fancy cassi- 
meres, scouring and 
coloring . 

6 sets, fancy (day and 
night), scouring and 
coloring . 

2 sets, low grade, very 
dirty 

4 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

2 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

2 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

2 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

5 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

96 or 98 looms 

Grist-mill and shin¬ 
gle-mill . 

Tannery and saw-mill, 

3 sets, scouring and 
coloring, a saw 
shoddy-mill 


3 sets, satinet 

11 sets, satinet 

2 sets, satinet and 
shoddy-mill 

3 sets, satinet, scour¬ 
ing and coloring 

Nothing 

Nothing 

16 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 

13 sets, scouring and 
coloring . 


88 sets . 


Now discontinued. 

2 sets, no wool scouring 
or coloring. 

1 set, satinet, no wool 
scouring or coloring. 

4 sets, satinet, no wool 
scouring or coloring. 

2 sets, satinet, no wool 
scouring or coloring. 

1 set, no wool scouring 
or coloring. 

6 sets, flannel (part cot¬ 
ton), no scouring or 
coloring. 

2 sets, satinet, no wool 
scouring or coloring. 

Washed out and not 
rebuilt. 

4 sets, scouring and col¬ 
oring. 

2 sets, no wool scouring 
or coloring. 

2 sets, no wool scouring 
or coloring. 

Burned and not rebuilt. 

Not running for some 
years. 

Same, 96 or 98 looms. 

Small mill with 1 wool- 
washer. 

Saw-mill. 


4 sets, no wool scouring 
or coloring, and shod¬ 
dy-mill. 

3 sets, satinet (same). 

11 sets, satinet (same). 

2 sets, satinet, and shod¬ 
dy-mill. 

3 sets, satinet, no wool 
scouring or coloring. 

10 sets, with scouring 
and coloring. 

2 sets, for filling wors¬ 
teds, no colors. 

8 sets, scouring and col¬ 
oring. 

13 sets, scouring and 
coloring. 

82 sets. 


Holden Reservoir filled for the first time in 1867. Capacity 450,000,000 gallons. 

i Ramshorn Reservoir Dam was raised ten feet in 1873. The pond covers an area of one hun¬ 
dred and forty-five acres, water to be drawn one-sixth in July, one-third in August, one-third in 
September, one-sixth in October. For acreage see State Board of Health Report, 1873. 
























139 


Q. — Ramshorn Brook is a brook running into the Blackstone 
River? A. —Yes, sir. 

— There is a reservoir on that brook? A. — Yes, sir. 

A. — Largely increased in size lately? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q • —What sort of a stream is that as to purity? That is a very 
pure stream. The dam was raised in ’73, some ten feet, increasing 
the capacity of the pond, Mr. Curtis says, three times. Three times 
the quantity of water-power comes from there that formerly did. 

Q .— Kettle Brook is another brook forming the Blackstone ? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Q. — What sort of a stream is that? A. — I should think it was 
very pure. It comes down from the Paxton Hills. There are a 
good many mills on it now, but not so many as formerly. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — You are not a chemical expert, are 
you ? A. — No, sir, I am not. 

Q. — Ever examined any analyses of these streams, so as to know 
any thing about their comparative purity. A. — No, sir: I am not 
a chemist. 

Q. — What induced } T ou to make this schedule ? A. — I did it at 
the request of the committee. 

Q. — When did you do it? A. — Last week. 

Q. — Have you got all the mills there are on any of the streams ? 
A. —I think I have. 

Q .—How many do they number? A. — I don’t remember: I 
can’t tell for certain. I can go through with the list, I guess; but 
I don’t remember the number particularly. I think that schedule 
shows them all. 

Q. — Have you included in this list all the manufactories of all 
sorts, or simply the woollen and cotton mills? A. — I have not been 
to the wire-mills. 

Q. — Well, machine-shops? A. — There are no machine-shops on 
the stream, except one, in your city. 

Q. —What is Mr. Coe’s shop? A. — I have not been to Mr. Coe’s 

shop. 

Q .—Have you been to any of the factories in the city? A. — 
No, sir. 

Q. —All the mills that your schedule includes, then, are mills out¬ 
side of the city of Worcester? A. — No, sir: I do not mean to be 
understood so. I have been to the mills that manufacture cloth or 
yarn, or fabrics of that sort: I have not been to the shops, including 
those in the city. I think the schedule shows precisely where I went. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Where is this Ramshorn Brook? Where 


140 


does it join the other stream? A. — It joins the other stream in the 
town of Auburn, just above New Worcester. 

Q. — Joins Kettle Brook? A. — Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES D. MORSE. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live in Millbury? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—How long have you lived there? A. —I have lived there 
thiity-two years. 

Q. —What has been your business there? A. — Sash, door, and 
blind work, —wood-work. 

Q. — During all this time at the same place? A. — My business 
has been at the same place : yes, sir. 

Q. — Will you state what you have noticed as to the condition of 
the river at } T our place of business — first, as to the pond filling up? 
A. — My pond has filled up very largely. I presume w r hat the engi¬ 
neer has said will cover that very largety. Perhaps it is not neces¬ 
sary to say much more; perhaps not any thing. But my pond has 
filled up very largely for the past eight years, so as to be noticeable, 
the grass growing very rapidly, and filling in at the upper part more 
particularly than at the lower part. As the w r ater comes in, the 
sewage, or sediment, is deposited on each side: the current goes 
directly through the pond. Last fall, when I went out in a boat with 
the engineer and another man to take the soundings, we found con¬ 
siderable trouble in rowing the boat. Although it was in November, 
I think the sixth day of November, we found considerable trouble in 
rowing the boat, on account of the odor from the river. The man 
who rowed us called it sculling. He stood in the hind end of the 
boat, and sculled it, without getting up so much odor from the river 
as would be the case if two oars were used. We found that the fill¬ 
ing, at times, especially in the upper part, had a regular sewage 
smell. The heft of the filling is in the upper part. The first that 
I noticed the odor from the river particularly was some six years ago. 
What called it to my attention more especially was this: I had a 
tank perhaps eight feet long, four feet wide, and three feet deep, or 
something like that, which I put into the shop, for shop and fire 
purposes. 

Q. — Is that the tank about which Dr. Lincoln testified? A .— 
Yes, sir. It ran along perhaps a year and a half after that, and I 
called in Dr. Lincoln and Dr. Webber to look at the tank. They 
were not both there at one time, but I asked them both to meet me 
at one time to look at the tank. Dr. Lincoln took a piece of panel, 
or shingle like, and scraped the excreta off the sides, and also from 
the bottom of the tank: and both Dr. Lincoln and Dr. Webber said 
that I must discontinue taking the water from the river, for fear it 


141 


would create disease and make it unhealthy ; and I did so. I had to 
wash that tank perhaps half a dozen times before I could get it so 
that the odor was fairly gone. 

Q • — Could water get into this tank from any other source than 
the river? A. — It did. I put a conductor on my building, and 
took what rain-water I could get from the roof; and, when I was 
short, I took from the river. 

Q. — So that there was nothing in the tank but rain-water and 
water from the river? A. —Rain-water and water from the river. 
Some two years ago we were obliged to close the windows quite often 
in the shop, and last year even more, on account of the odor from 
the river. We find more loss of time the past few years than for¬ 
merly. I attribute it to the effects of the river upon the workmen. 
There is more lassitude, and lack of energy, —a feeling, as some of 
them express it, of goneness, weakness, sinking. 

Q. —Have you looked into the matter to see about it? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — What can you say as to the number of days that were lost by 
a certain number of men in any one } r ear, formerly, as compared with 
the time lost now? A. —I took 1872. I took forty men, in their 
order, as they appear on my time-book. Those forty men made 110,- 
249 hours in the year. During that } T ear business was not over and 
above driving : we did not work in November or December evenings ; 
we usually work evenings when we are busy. Had we worked in 
November and December the same as we worked in 1881, we should 
have added —calling those two months the same as in 1881 — 2,631 
hours, making the total 112,180 hours. The same number of men, 
working from Oct. 1, 1880, to Oct. 1, 1881 —the reason I take these 
two dates, and not, as in the previous year, from Januar} 1, to Janu¬ 
ary, was because I was burned out the fifth day of last October; and 
so I took a year back from that. In that year the same number of 
men worked 105,561 hours, making a loss of 7,329 hours in one 
year’s time of forty men. At twenty cents an hour, that would 
amount to $1,465.80. We average about 55 men, which, at the same 
ratio, would increase the amount of loss to over $1,800 per year. 

Q. — Loss in wages, you mean ? A. — Yes, sir, over and above the 
time of 1872. We find that we have more or less diphtheria among 
our help. I have it in my own family. I don’t know as I should 
call it diphtheria , — “ diphtheretic sore throat,” the doctor calls it. 
My wife was sick three years ago with diphtheretic sore throat. 

Q. — How far is your house from the river? A. —About an 
eighth of a mile. She was sick nearly all the winter with diphther¬ 
etic sore throat, and quite sick, at times, from the smell. My oldest 
daughter was sick last year, and my clerk was sick with diphtheretic 
sore throat last season. 


142 


Q .—You speak of 3 ’our mill having been burned. When was 
that? A. — Oct. 5, 1881. 

Q. — You have sprinkling-pipes in your mill ? A. — I have 
sprinkling-pipes : } T es, sir. 

Q. —Will you explain to the Committee the operation of those 
sprinklers? A. — Iliad a building one hundred and thirty-six feet 
long, three stories high, forty-two feet wide ; and I put in three lines 
of sprinklers in each story. The basement had three lines ; and in 
the upper story, which had a mansard roof, I put three lines, to pro¬ 
tect the roof in case fire should go up under the ceiling in any way. 

Q. — When 3 T ou speak of a Zme, what do 3 'ou mean ? Whether or 
no it is a piece of steam or gas pipe? Won’t you explain it to the 
Committee? A. —That is just what it is, — gas-pipe. 

Q. —How large is it? A. —Perhaps at one end it is tw r o inches ; 
and, at the other end, it is reduced down to three-quarters of an inch, 
perforated with holes. 

Q. —And this pipe is connected with the pump? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — So that when you start the pump, the water is forced into this 
pipe? A. — Yes, sir: and forced out through those holes. 

Q. — There were three lines of this pipe? A. —Three lines in 
each story. 

Q. —Now, will 3 t ou tell the Committee the experience 3 r ou had in 
using this at the time of the fire? A. —On the 5th of October my 
building caught fire ; and the first thing was to start my pump, after 
shutting down m 3 r wheel. It seemed at first that we had got the fire 
substantially under control: but, the pipes being smaller at the farther 
end, the sediment was forced out to that end, and it filled the holes 
in the pipe ; and there was where the fire got its headwa 3 r . 

Q. —You mean that this pipe acted as a strainer? A. —Asa 
strainer: 3 ’es, sir. There is where the fire took -its headway: it was 
at the farther end, although most of m 3 T shavings were in the middle 
of the shop. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Is that pipe open at the end? A. 
— No, sir. 

7 t 

Q. —Then, there are holes towards the end of the pipe? A .— 
There are holes through the whole length of the pipe: small holes. 

Q. — How large are those holes? A. — Perhaps a little larger 
than a pin ; not so large as a pin-head, perhaps. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —How far apart are the holes? A. — Per¬ 
haps ten inches. It makes a perfect rainstorm, when every thing is 
working in good shape. 

Q. —Have you a photograph showing what you saved of the mill? 
A. —Yes, sir. [Photograph shown.] 

Q. — Did you have the sediment taken out of those pipes? A. — 
Yes, sir. 


143 


Q . —Won’t you show that to the Committee, and state what it is? 
[Witness produced a bottle.] A. —That did not come out of the 
pipe in the mill, but it came out of a pipe that we had in the machine- 
shop to protect the end of the building in case the other shop should 
burn. It was an upright pipe, with a stop-cock put where you could 
reach it. I found the lower end of it filled with sediment. We used 
that only a very few minutes. 

Q. — I understand there was a sprinkler on the machine-shop near 
your mill? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —That sprinkler ran during that night? A. —Yes, sir : for a 
few minutes. 

Q. — And it was from the pipe of that sprinkler that this material 
came? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —You have photographs showing what of the mill was saved, 
and the looks of the mill after the fire? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —By the photograph, one end of the building appears not to 
have been burned? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — It was in that end that the sprinklers worked well ? A. — 
That was the end where the larger pipes were : yes, sir. 

Q — The large end of the pipes was the last part that would fill up, 
if any did? A. —Yes, sir: the end that burned, where it took its 
headway, was where the small end of the pipe was ; where the sedi¬ 
ment was thrown in, as I have reason to believe. 

Q. — Have you any doubt that if those sprinklers had worked 
properl}", much less damage would have been done that night? A. — 
I think we should have saved at least half. 

Q. — Have you any doubt that the reason the sprinklers did not 
work was on account of the material of this sort that was forced into 
the pipes? A. —I have no doubt that that was the cause of the 
building: burning;, from the fact that there was evidence of it in the 
sprinkler outside. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) — Whether or not you have had any personal 
knowledge or experience with regard to the operation of this contriv¬ 
ance that you speak of, for putting out fires? A. —I tried it my¬ 
self, but not on a fire. 

Q. — I mean, have you any knowledge of what would have been 
the effect, if you had poured water upon the fire through those sprin¬ 
klers, as it occurred in your shop? A. — I tried it in my basement 
without any fire, and it worked perfectly. That is, when I put it in, 
seven or eight years ago. 

Q. — I take it that you have a great many shavings scattered 
ground in your shop. Now, if that had worked perfectly, have you 
an} r assurance, from your own experience, that the fire would have 
been put out? A. — I have reason to believe it would, for it gained 
its headway where there were the least shavings. 


144 


Q. (By the Chairman.) —Bo } r ou know absolutely that the sprin¬ 
klers did not work? A. — Well, at that end of the shop. 

Q. — You assume that they did not, because the fire was not put 
out? A. — I found burnt sediment in the ends of those sprinklers. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —Are you sure your apparatus was in 
perfect running order before the fire? A. —Yes, sir. 

Adjourned to Wednesday at 10 o’clock. 


145 


FOURTH HEARING. 


State House, Boston, March 15, 1882. 
The hearing was resumed at 10.30 o’clock. 


TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT BOOTH. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — You live in Millbury ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you lived there? A. —Almost seven years. 

Q. — During that time, 3~ou have been a practising physician there? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — From your acquaintance with the people and with the river, 
what do you say as to the general effect of the pollution of the river 
upon the general health of the people? A. —Well, I think it has a 
deleterious effect upon the health of the community living upon the 
stream. 

Q . —How far down the stream does your practice extend? A. — 
As far as Blackstone. 

Q. — So that 3’ou are familiar with the Blackstone River from 
below Worcester to the State-line? A. —I practised medicine in 
Blackstone about eight years. 

Q. — Will }’ou state in your own words to the Committee in what 
wa3' you have noticed this deleterious effect upon the health of the 
people, — the kinds of sicknesses 3 T ou have noticed, and ascribed to 
the river? A. —Typhoid fever principally, diphtheria, dyspepsia, 
and general debility. These are the diseases I attribute principally 
to the influence of emanations arising from filth or any thing of that 
character. 

Q .—Have these diseases been noticeabl3 r common? A. — Yes, 
sir: I have attended quite a number of cases of t3 T phoid fever, a few 
of intermittent fever, intermittent neuralgia, isolated cases occasion¬ 
ally of diphtheria. Almost all, if not all, of these cases I attribute 
to the emanation arising either from the Blackstone River, or, if they 
were not in the vicinity of the river, from like causes around the 
premises. Most of the cases were in the vicinity of the Blackstone 
River. 

q. —Under what general term are such diseases classed? A. — 
Z3~motic diseases. 

q, _Can you say any thing to the Committee that will show them 

why it is that you ascribe the prevalence of these diseases to the pol- 


146 


lution of the river? A .—I can relate to you some cases. While I 
lived in Blackstone, I observed that when children went much into 
the water—as they are accustomed to there more than they are in 
Millbury, because in Millbury they know what the water is: down 
there the} r are not so familiar with it—typhoid fever was veiy preva¬ 
lent among those who went much into the water. I remember the 
case of one young man who was less than a } r ear in this country, — 
very healthy. He went into the water to bathe ; and, a short time 
after, he was taken down with typhoid fever. It was the most intract¬ 
able and the worst case I ever met. This, at the time, was attrib¬ 
uted to going into the water, which I had no doubt in my mind was 
the case. The 3’oung man died. Amongst bo3'S it was very common 
while I lived in Blackstone. I forbade parents to allow their children 
to go into the river, telling them the consequences ; as I had observed 
that typhoid fever frequently attacked those that went into the river 
to bathe. At Millbury there was one case a 3 T ear ago last summer of 
a 3 T oung lady who worked in the Mill Brook cotton-mill. She was 
taken with something like intermittent fever. At first the chill and 
fever returned eveiy second day, finalty it came ever3 r da3 r , and then 
twice a day. I was called to attend her, and I used all the means in 
my power to arrest it; but it finalty went into consumption, to which 
she was predisposed : and she died. I made some inquiiy in relation 
to the river; and she said that she worked over the wheel in the mill, 
and that, during the summer, the stench was almost unbearable. 
From what I could find out from my inquiries and m3’ investigations 
into the case, I came to the conclusion that it was the stench from the 
water of the Blackstone River that was the cause of her sickness and 
death. Cases of typhoid fever are veiy much more common in that 
part of the village that we call Millbuiy, than it is in the part desig¬ 
nated as Bramanville ; although in location Millbury is much better 
situated than Bramanville, as Bramanville is situated between hills, 
and doesn’t get the free air as Millbuty does. You would expect 
that we would have more such diseases there than in Millbuiy; but 
experience teaches the contraiy. 

Q. — Would your opinion as to the effect upon the health-rate by 
this pollution of the river be modified an3 T b3’ the fact that the death- 
rate in Millbury, for the last two years, say, has decreased? A .— 
Well, no: I should think not. The health-rate and the death-rate 
are very different. There may be a great deal of sickness, and very 
few deaths. It depends a great deal, in my experience, upon the 
epidemic. Sometimes we have epidemics which are very mild in 
their character; at other times we have those which are vey severe. 
Whether these are caused by the poison, or some modification of that, 
or whether they are caused by any local troubles, I am not prepared 
to sa3 r . 


147 


Q. —Isn’t this the theory maintained by sanitary authorities, that 
the number of deaths in a given district bears no constant ratio to 
its healthiness or unhealthiness ? A. — I believe that is the general 
opinion. 

Q • —There was an epidemic at one time in Maplewood Seminary, 
— have you looked into that matter at all? A. — I have the report 
of that case. 

Q. —You have it with }*ou? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q- — Will }’ou read the title-page? A. — “A Report upon the 
Epidemic occurring at Maplewood Young Ladies’ Institute, Pittsfield, 
Mass., in Jul}' and August, 1864 ; including a Discussion of the 
Causes of Typhoid Fever. By A. B. Palmer, M.D., and C. L. Ford, 
M.D., and Pliny Earle, M.D.” 

Q. — Are there any quotations from medical authorities in that 
pamphlet bearing upon the relation of pollution of streams and air to 
Z3 T motic diseases? A. — There are a number of such quotations. 

Q .—Are there any that you desire to read, to substantiate your 
opinion ? A. — I think some of them would substantiate what I have 
been speaking of. I will read some if you wish. 

Q. — You may read them, doctor. A. —Here is one by Dr. Car¬ 
penter, an English physiologist: — 

“ The injurious influence of decomposing azotized matter, in either predis¬ 
posing to or exciting severe disease, and particularly typhoid fever, is univer¬ 
sally admitted among high medical authorities. The views of Dr. Carpenter 
on this subject are too well known to medical men to need full elaboration. 
His doctrine, so clearly stated, and so amply illustrated by facts, is, that decom¬ 
posing materials in the system, whether generated and retained there, or taken 
in from without, either in Water or food contaminated with foul matters, as 
sewerage, etc., or in the air by night-soil and sewerage emanations, either them¬ 
selves produce disease, or serve as the nidus for the operation of specific or 
zymotic poisons, such poisons as produce fevers, cholera, diarrhoea, dysentery, 
and the like.” 

There is a paragraph here from Dr. Williams, author of “ The 
Principles of Medicine,” — a volume that is in the hands of almost 
every physician who knows of it; it is a high medical authority : — 

“ The soil which drains from habitations, contains, in addition to excrement, 
dirty water, the washings and remnants of animal and vegetable matter used as 
food, and other offal. All these are mixed together and stagnant in the cor¬ 
rupting slough that is retained in cesspools and privies, or that is carried into 
sewers. Every ill-drained house has a Pandora’s box ready to pour forth its 
evils when occasion offers, and always oozing them out in degrees sufficient for 
the impairment of health. 

“ These materials continually poison both air and water; and typhoid fever, 
diarrhoea, cholera, dysentery, dyspepsia, inappetency, general weakness, and 
malnutrition are the results of their pestiferous operation acting in different 
degrees.” 



148 


It might be stated that the reason why the same cause will not 
produce the same effect in two different individuals, is because of 
predisposition. Dr. Watson, in his work on “ The Practice of Medi¬ 
cine,” gives an illustration of it. He says, Let half a dozen men be 
in a boat which becomes capsized, and all the men precipitated into 
the water. They will remain in the water some time before being 
rescued, and on returning to their homes .they will not all be affected 
alike. One of the individuals ma} r have rheumatism, another may 
have pneumonia, another may probably have typhoid fever or some¬ 
thing else, and all the rest ma}' come off free. He attributes this to 
a predisposition. 

Q. — Has the name “night-soil fever” been given to typhoid 
fever? A. — It is generally known b}^ that name. 

Q. — It is stated so under the authority of Dr. Murchison? A. — 
He calls it by that name, or “ pythogenic.” 

Q. —Whether or not it is } T our opinion, that if the unpurified sewage 
of Worcester, as it increases, continues to be poured into the Black- 
stone River, there will be a cause there capable of producing epi¬ 
demics throughout the valley? A. — I have no doubt of it whatever. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (Bjr Mr. Goulding.) —How old are 3^011, doctor? A. — I am 
fort} f -three. 

Q*—Where were you educated? A. — I graduated in medicine 
at Ann Arbor, Mich. 

Q. —When? A. — In 1867 . 

Q. — Are you a native of this country? A. —No, sir, I am not. 

Q. — You practised in Blackstone how long? A. —Eight years. 

Q. —Beginning when? A. — The year that I graduated, — 1867 . 

Q. —That is the last town in the State? Then, j^ou have been 
since then in Millbury? A. — Well, most of the time since then. 

Q. —What is your school of medicine, —regular? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Cases of typhoid fever are common in all towns, I take it, 
in this State? A. —Yes, sir: very common. 

Q. — Have you investigated the question of the death-rate of Mill¬ 
bury for the past ten or a dozen or twenty years? A. — I have not. 

Q. — Suppose you should investigate it, and find that the death- 
rate had increased very rapidly since the sewage of Worcester was 
emptied into the river: would you, or not, think it important to put 
that in as evidence here? A .—I should rather think, if the death- 
rate had increased, that I would. 

Q • — Why, if it wholly disconnected from the question of the 
health-rate? A. — Oh ! I don’t know that it is. 

Q. — Didn’t you so testify? A. —I don’t understand that I testi- 


149 


fied in that way. I said that the death-rate being increased would 
not go entirely' to prove — that was my idea — that there was more 
sickness. 

Q •—But as a general proposition, doctor, wouldn’t the death-rate 
for a period of years, say fifteen or twenty, be a pretty fair criterion 
of the health-rate? A. —That would be a difficult question to an¬ 
swer, because I know that the death-rate does not always correspond 
with the health-rate. 

Q.—I understood you to say r that before; but now the question 
that I put is, whether the death-rate for a series of years — say r ten 
or twenty — would not, in y*our judgment, be a pretty fair criterion of 
the health-rate? A. —Well, I could not say that it would or would 
not. I could scarcely' answer that question. 

Q. — What do you understand is the object, in our State Board of 
Health reports and other reports of that kind, in ascertaining with so 
much care the death-rate? Has it any relation to the public health, 
or is it simply a matter of curiosity? A. — Oh, no! it is not a 
matter of curiosity'. I presume it has some relation to the public 
health, and also to the prevailing diseases. 

Q. —And that is another way of saying that it has relation to the 
health, isn’t it? A. — Yes, sir, if you wished to construe it so. 

Q. — I do not wish to construe any^ thing. I desire to get at the 
facts. A. —I understand the object of the reports is to get the cause 
and the name of the disease the person died of, and, I suppose, to 
know what the prevailing diseases are in different localities. 

Q. (By' the Chairman.) — What is the use of knowing? A. —It 
might be very essential: as much so, I presume, as to know the death- 
rate,— to know what diseases are prevailing in different parts of the 
country. It gives us statistics which we have in all our works. In 
relation to small-pox, for instance, it is necessary to know whether 
small-pox as a disease is on the increase since vaccination came into 
use or became compulsory, or whether it is on the decrease. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Why don’t they', then, ascertain, if they 
can, the health-rate directly, and have reports upon that? A. — That 
might be a difficult matter. 

Q. —It is a difficulty that they don’t think they can wrestle with? 
A. —I presume so. 

Q. —I will ask you in candor if you do not understand that these 
death-rates are collected and published for the purpose of ascertaining 
the condition of the public health, and with a view to improve the 
public health ; if you do not understand that to be their object, as an 
intelligent man and a physician? A. — I think that is one of their 
objects, certainly. 

Q. — Do you think it is an object that is not likely to be obtained 


150 


by any such method? A. — I think to a certain extent it may. I 
do not wish to deny at all that it would not. My statement before 
was, that I thought that the death-rate, say for a season, or for a 
number of seasons, would not indicate the state of the health of the 
locality; but, take it for a great many years, it might. 

Q. —You think a well man would be quite as likely 7 to die as a sick 
man? A. —Oh, no ! that is not my idea. 

Q. —Then, a sick community would be just as likely 7 to live as long 
and have a low death-rate as a well community: that is your proposi¬ 
tion, is it? A. —The proposition that I made, a good deal of it, is 
conveyed in that article that I read last. Those are my views, my 
ideas. 

Q. —You did not originate those ideas? A. — I did not originate 
them, but I gave them to you as my own. 

Q. — When did y T ou first read these opinions ? A. — I read them 
a great many years ago. 

Q. —When did you first read this report that y r ou have read here? 
A. — Ten or fifteen y’ears ago. 

Q .— That case of epidemic at Pittsfield occurred at that time? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Fifteen years ago? A. — I cannot ‘give the date. 

Q. — I understood your answer to be, with regard to the cause of 

the cases of typhoid fever that you have had, that they were due 

either to emanations from the river or from sewage? A. — If you 

will permit me, I should like to give an explanation of what I mean. I 

made the statement here that I thought that sewage and filth produced 

a certain class of diseases. This class of diseases may not necessa- 

«/ 

rily be fatal; not nearly 7 so fatal as another class of diseases which I 
do not attribute to sewage. That other class of diseases may come 
into a place and become epidemic and sweep off a whole community’, 
whereas it has nothing to do with the question before us to-day 7 . 
That is my idea, and I think y’ou understand it. 

Q. —Now, suppose it should appear that the death-rate of Mill- 
bury for the past ten or a dozen or twenty 7 years, from what are 
called filth diseases, was low in comparison with towns otherwise 
situated like Millbury 7 , should you then think that was a fact of' any 7 
importance as determining the question of the state of the public 
health as affected by the local conditions of the river? A. —I should 
think, if y T ou can prove that, you have a strong point. 

He-direct. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)— In your experience in medicine, can the 
health-rate be put down in tables? A. —I don’t well see how it 
could be. 


151 


Q • — Are there not some people who are sick who don’t come to you 
and don’t go to anybody ? A. — A great manj'; and I would call 3 our 
attention again to what Dr. Williams sa}'s, and 3*011 will probably 
understand m} T meaning much better than 3 011 seem to. My opinion is, 
that the death-rate has nothing to do with this, because we attribute 
onty one class of diseases to this sewage. And I would like to make an¬ 
other remark: A 3~ear ago last winter we had the most fatal epidemic 
of scarlet fever that I ever met. Twenty-five per cent, I think, died 
of all that were affected b3 r the disease. This epidemic I do not at¬ 
tribute to sewage at all; I do not attribute measles, nor any^ of the 
exanthematic diseases, to sewage; although, from what was here 
stated, this sewage, or these foul emanations rising from decomposing 
organic material, may so affect the system, that when a person is 
taken with any of these exanthematic diseases, or any thing which is 
not in this class that I have spoken of as arising from this trouble, 
he ma3 r not be able to bear up in his sickness. Persons ma3 r be 
taken with whooping-cough, measles, or small-pox; and their s3*stems 
may be in such a low state, owing to the depressing influence of this 
poison upon the blood, that they ma3 T succumb to a disease that the3 r 
would recover from if this was not the case. Those are my views. 

Q. (Ety Mr. Chamberlain.) —You were just speaking of a case of 
consumption: do I understand that 3 T ou think these polluted waters 
produce consumption? A. —Yes, sir: indirect^, if a person is pre¬ 
disposed to consumption. Any thing that will depress or lower the 
vitality will act as an exciting cause to bring 011 a disease to which a 
person is predisposed. 

Q. —Lung diseases? A. — Yes, sir. This case which you refer 
to was a case of malarial fever, or intermittent fever, which ended in 
consumption. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —Do 3 T ou think that the number or skill of 
physicians in a community has any thing to do, one way or the other, 
with the death-rate where the health-rate is low, where sickness pre¬ 
vails, I mean? A. — I think it might. 

Q t —YY)u think physicians do some good where— A. —They 
may do some good, or they may do some harm. 

Q. — I mean in the average now. This is a matter where the 
death-rate and the health-rate, you say, differ. Now, where the 
people are sickly, do the character of the physicians, their number, 
and their skill, have any thing to do with regard to the number of 
deaths? A. — I might answer that in one way : where there is very 
much sickness there is a great deal to do, and the physicians will 
probably be more numerous. In Millbury we have five in active 
practice in that small village, and all seem to have plenty to do. 

Q. — They cure the people who are sick, so that they do not die? 


152 


A. —I don’t suppose it speaks very well for the physicians if they do 
not. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Would you say, from your experience 
taken as a whole, that there is a lower condition of health and vitality 
among the people as a whole in those towns than prevails elsewhere? 
A. — I think there is in the main. I have always practised along the 
Blackstone Valle}’; but I lived in northern villages previous to that, 
and I think there is a very much lower condition of health along the 
Blackstone Valley than in northern villages, where I have lived pre¬ 
vious to my engaging in the practice of medicine. 

Q .—What should you say, so far as you know, of the condition 
that prevails in Blackstone, as compared with Millbury? A. —Well, 
I think, on the whole, it might be worse. 

Q .—Worse where? in Blackstone? A. —Worse in Blackstone 
than in Millbury. 

Q. —Do you get as much of this sewage in Blackstone as in Mill¬ 
bury? A. ■—There is a great deal in the location of a place. Black¬ 
stone is a low, sunken place, and any emanations that may arise from 
the river remain stagnant. Millbury is higher: we get a good sweep 
of wind down that Blackstone Valley which blows a great deal of it 
away, — at least where I live, and in most parts of it. But, if Mill¬ 
bury was situated as Blackstone is, it would be very much more un¬ 
healthy than Blackstone. In this report which I have here, there is 
something, I think, bearing on that subject. In speaking of Maple¬ 
wood, it says, that, at the time when this took place, there was very 
little wind : it was very calm and sultry. It says, — 

“ Absence of winds was, doubtless, the worst condition for the inmates of 
Maplewood. Strong winds would have tended to carry away and dissipate the 
vitiated atmosphere.” 

That has a great deal to do with it. If a village is situated on 
high land so that it gets the full sweep of the wind, the miasm that 
arises from the stagnant water will be blown away, and the people 
will escape ; but if the village happens to be located on a low place 
between hills, and these emanations arise, the whole atmosphere in 
the vicinity becomes impregnated, and the people become much more 
affected. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) — How long have you lived in Millbury? A. 
— I shall have been seven years in Millbury next June. 

Q. —Your circuit of practice includes about how many inhabitants? 
A. —My circuit — I could not exactly say : I never thought about 
it. 

Q . —Four or five hundred ? A. — I should say more than that. 

Q . —You spoke of having a great many cases of diphtheria : how 


153 

many do you think you have had, annually or collectively, since you 
have been there? A .—That would depend on the season. Some 
seasons w’e do not have an}'. I think I have not had a case of diph¬ 
theria within a year. Some years I have probably had not more than 
two or three cases, and they were isolated: I should not attribute 
them to the river. 

Q •—You spoke of intermittent fever: how many cases of that 
character of fever have }’ou had ? A. — I believe I have had but one 
case, — that is, that I would attribute to the river. Of course I have 
had other cases of sickness, which I would not consider as caused by 
the river. 

Q !. —You do not think that the sewage, or the emanation from the 
Blackstone River, had any thing to do with those cases? A. —No, 
sir. Many of the cases were not in the vicinity of the Blackstone 
River: some of them were. 

Q • —Has t}^phoid fever been prevalent within a year? A. —No 
special cases. I have had a number of what we usually call slow 
fevers, — mild typhoid. 

Q. — Was that during the last fall? A .—That was during the 
last fall: }’es. 

Q. —It was a general thing over the county? A. —Yes. 


TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES F. FOLSOM. 

[Mr. Morse suggested that the Chairman should question Dr. Fol¬ 
som, inasmuch as he did not appear as a witness for either side.] 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Dr. Folsom, you have been invited to 
come in here by the Committee ; and we shall be very glad to have 
you, in as brief a way as } r ou can, give us the results of } r our experi¬ 
ence in regard to the condition of things in the Blackstone-river 
Valley as growing out of the emptying of the sewage of the city of 
Worcester into that river. A. — I don’t know exactly what points 
have been gone over by the Committee, as I have unfortunately been 
unable to hear wdiat has been said ; and I don’t know exactly what 
points they would like to ask me about. So far as the nuisance is 
concerned, I should think that was unquestioned. As to the quantity 
of the nuisance, and extent to which the people of the vicinity are 
disturbed by it, I should think that the Committee could satisfy them¬ 
selves fully as well from people who are living there as from any of 
us who have been there but a few times. The number of times I w r as 
there I was satisfied in my own mind that it was a serious economical 
trouble to the mill-owners, and that it was very offensive ; and it is 
not at all impossible that the degree of smell may have had some in¬ 
fluence on the public health. I should think it would be very likely 


154 


to, although of course it would not be likely to have so much influence 
in a country district, where the air is pure, as it would in a city. 

Q. — There is no doubt in your mind that there is a nuisance to a 
greater or less extent existing in consequence of the empt} T ing of 
the sewage of the city of Worcester? A. —Oh ! I should think one 
might state that fact beforehand without seeing the conditions. You 
have there the sewage of a city of over fifty thousand inhabitants 
emptying into a stream, the greatest flow of which in the driest 
weather is seven hundred and fifty 7 thousand gallons a day. Of course, 
I should say beforehand that that amount of sewage, coming into a 
stream of that sort, would necessarilj’ be a nuisance. Of course, the 
degree and extent of the nuisance would be determined by the num¬ 
ber of people living in the vicinity of the stream, and their nearness 
to the stream. 

Q. — Have you personally observed the smells as far down as Mill- 
bury? A. — One day when I was at Millbury 7 it was quite offensive : 
the other days that I happened to be there, I did not happen to notice 
verv much smell as far down as that. 

Q. — Was it your opinion that that was a sewage smell? A. — I 
think that there is no question about that. 

Q. — What is the amount of sewage that the city of Worcester 
turns in there? A. — About three million gallons a da} T , I think. 

Q. — If there should be a larger flow of water, an immense flow, 
such as there was a week or two ago, and ail } 7 one should say to you 
that it could not be a sewage smell that you detected because there 
were onl } 7 three million gallons of sewage going in there, what would 
you say to that? A. — I don’t think that would alter the fact of the 
sewage smelling. If sewage exists in a considerable quantity, and 
decomposes, it will make a considerably offensive smell. Of course, 
the more diluted it is with water, the more it is extended over a 
large space, and the less the nuisance would be likely to be. 

Q. — Is this sewage liable to be deposited on the banks of the 
river? A. — I satisfied myself that there is a certain amount of 
deposit; although I think it is not so great as it would be in a climate 
unlike ours, where they do not have heavy spring and fall freshets. 
Of course, that scours it out to a certain extent; but there is a cer¬ 
tain amount of deposit from the sewage. Of course, the first dam 
intercepts considerable; and the amount below that is probably less 
proportionately to the area of the bed of the stream than that which 
is above. I think that there is no doubt that there is a certain 
amount there. 

Q. — Would a freshet scour down the sewage deposits that have 
been planted on the banks of the river? A. — To a very great extent. 
Of course, the fact how much they do scour it out is only to be decided 


155 


b} T experience and observation. There is a certain amount of deposit 
there evidently, and unquestionably there would be very much more 
if it were not for the freshets; but it is a very difficult matter to 
ascertain, when there is a deposit in a stream, to what it is due abso¬ 
lutely. You cannot say positively by chemical analysis whether it is 
sewage, or whether it is simply vegetable mould and decaying organic 
matter generally. If it has been there for a considerable length of 
time, and if } r ou have a deposit half a foot or a foot deep, then you 
can tell by chemical analysis ; but, with a deposit of an inch or two, 
it is so much washed out by the rains any way, that I do not think 
there would be any way of saying positivety, by chemical analysis, 
what that deposit is. But the fact of there being so much sewage 
there, and the fact that one knows that sewage alwa3’s does deposit, 
it is very safe to infer that the deposit is largely due to the sewage. 

Q. — Have you made such examination as to satisfy } t ou that the 
public health of Millbury and the region around there may be impaired 
in consequence of this ? A. — My opinion would be that it is to a 
certain extent. I could not say how far without more thorough 
examination. I should want to go about there pretty minutely ; and, 
in fact, I should want to have lived there during a season to be able 
to judge on that point. 

Q. — Suppose the death-rate of Millbury should be shown to have 
rather improved on the whole for a period of ten years : what should 
you say that indicated? A. —I should not think it necessarily indi¬ 
cated any thing. For instance, here is a case in point which was 
reported somewhat fully a little while ago. They were having a heavy 
death-rate from typhoid fever in Paris, where, as actual observation 
showed, that the number of cases was smaller than usual; so that the 
death-rate does not necessarily indicate the amount of sickness. I 
should not expect any fatal disease from a nuisance of this kind. I 
should expect something which would cause, perhaps, temporary and 
slight troubles, or a certain amount of impairment of the health, 
which would make people more subject to serious troubles when they 
came along. I should doubt very much indeed whether a thing of 
that sort could be traced in the death-rate. In London, for instance, 
one year when the Thames was most offensive, — so offensive that the 
House of Commons were actually driven out of their room, and had 
to give up their session, —the death-rate from typhoid fever and that 
class of diseases in London happened to be smaller than usual; so 
that I think you cannot infer absolutely from the death-rate what the 
condition of a town is with regard to the minor diseases, which per¬ 
haps prevent people from working, or make them uncomfortable, but 
do not kill them. 

Q. — Have you examined much into the matter of the practicability 


156 


of any thing being done by the city of Worcester to dispose of its 
sewage by irrigation or otherwise? A. — I think I have seen all the 
methods that are in use in different parts of the world ; that is, nearly 
all, and a number of illustrations of most of them. With regard to 
Millbuiy, when I was a member of the State Board of Health, it was 
a matter which the board looked into a good deal, — the purification 
of streams. I visited Worcester and Millbury a number of times ; 
and, of course, last year I went there quite a number of times. 

Q. — Do you consider such a plan practicable at no very inordinate 
cost? A. — I think there is no doubt about that. I think the matter 
has been successfully accomplished in so raan} T different ways, in so 
manj T parts of the world, and for so many }'ears, that it is a matter 
upon which I can positively sa}- that there is no doubt but that it can 
be done. 

Q . — With regard to the matter of cost, I suppose that is a matter 
that you would be likely to say engineers could tell us better about 
than you? A. —I went over all the matters of the cost with regard 
to this, very minutely, with Mr. Davis. That was the part he was 
most familiar with, from an engineering point of view; and I hap¬ 
pened to have seen more of the practical working of the thing in the 
farms. Of course, as to the details of engineering, I should not 
express an opinion absolutely; but I have been over so many esti¬ 
mates of expense with Mr. Davis, and I have seen so many times 
that his estimates come rather under than over the fact, that I feel 
very confident that the figures in that report are not overstated. 

Mr. Morse. If I may make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, the 
doctor probably assumes that the Committee have had opportunity to 
read his report; but I judge from the Chairman’s statement, at the 
beginning of the hearing, that has not been done. So* that if Dr. 
Folsom would be kind enough to state substantially what the recom¬ 
mendation is that the Committee make, as to the mode of purifying 
the sewage, it may enable the Committee to understand it. 

The Chairman. It is my intention, as well as the intention of the 
rest of the Committee, to read that report, every w r ord of it; but I 
have not had time to read it as yet. 

Witness. In the case of the precipitation scheme, the estimated 
cost was $343,840, with a probable deficit of from $10,000 to $15,- 
000 a year ; that is, it would probably cost from $10,000 to $15,000 
a year more to keep the thing going than would be brought in. In the 
case of the irrigation method, the estimated cost was $408,490 ; and 
the deficit in that case would vary very much indeed, depending upon 
the season. I think, under favorable circumstances, there might be 
no more deficit than the interest on the cost of the works; but it 
probably would vary from $1,000 to $6,000. I think in unfavorable 


157 


3 r ears one would expect — including the cost of pumping, which 
would have to be done for part of the sewage — that there would be 
that amount of deficit. I see by Col. Waring’s method the estimated 
cost is very much less, —$206,500. 

Mr. Morse. Now, doctor, if I may interrupt again, would y T ou 
be good enough to state to the Committee what are the features of 
the two plans that you have given estimates of, — what are the meth¬ 
ods proposed? 

Witness. The first consists of a method which has been adopted 
in a few places in the world, where the cost of land is so enormous, 
and where the owners of land have such absolute rights over it, that 
land cannot be got. As an illustration, I might cite the case of the 
city of Birmingham. Sir Charles Adley, who was a member of 
Parliament, was one of the greatest land-owners in the vicinity of the 
city. The sewage was thrown into a small stream, and it was by his 
exertions that a bill was passed through Parliament requiring the city 
of Birmingham to take their sewage out of the river. He happened 
to own the only land that could be used for purposes of irrigating, 
and he refused to sell that land at any price. The city was then in 
the awkward position of being compelled by Parliament to do some¬ 
thing which then was thought impossible to do. In order to get over 
that, they had to use some one of these precipitation schemes. 
Wherever this precipitating process has been used, there has always 
been some such difficulty as that; and the reason of its not being 
used is, that it is more expensive than irrigation, and that a large 
quantity of “sludge” is deposited every day which contains about 
ninety per cent of water, and is very much in the condition of street- 
mud, after a heavy rain, in a town where the streets are not paved. 
An}' process of drying that is expensive, and then it has to be 
carted away ; and, when it is carted away, it is of so little value that 
farmers will give almost nothing for it. At some time of the year, 
when there is nothing doing, they will give a shilling or two a ton for 
it; but, commonly speaking, it has to be given away. 

The first method was to carry the sewage to a point so far from 
Worcester, where precipitating tanks could be constructed for pre¬ 
cipitating this sewage, that the smell would not annoy the Worcester 
people. It was then to be mixed with lime ; and the solid part of 
the lime, by mixing with the organic matter, when it settles carries 
the organic matter down with it, and also the sand and dirt, and 
every thing of that sort. There is to be a series of tanks for that 
purpose, so that after the sludge has settled to a depth of about a 
foot and a half in one, another set can be used, and the sludge from 
the one can be carted away. I should say, as an illustration of the 
condition of that sludge about that time, that from some of the pre- 


158 


cipitating tanks, instead of being shovelled out, it is pumped out, 
showing what a fluid condition it is in ; and it then contains, as I 
said, about ninety per cent of water. In some parts of England, 
where this is done for small places, the}" can carry it out on land, and 
let it dry in the sun ; but it is offensive, and of course it requires a 
very large area of useless land to be used for that purpose. 

We considered that scheme as of very much less value than the 
other ; because, although the first cost would be a little less, the annual 
deficit would much more than make up the difference between the two. 
And I think one may say that that has been pretty thoroughly aban¬ 
doned everywhere, excepting in some such exigency as that of Bir¬ 
mingham, where an Act of Parliament has driven people to emptying 
the sewage out of the stream, and where they have but a very limited 
amount of land. On the continent of Europe experiments have been 
made in France, Germany, Austria, and Belgium ; but they have 
universally thrown it aside as impracticable compared with the 
others. 

The other plan which was suggested was, to carry the sewage of the 
city proper down to small tanks which would simply remove the 
heaviest part of the sewage — very small indeed — by gravity flow, 
and that from the high district by pumping, uniting the two, and 
carrying them to a point far enough down to prevent any smell being 
offensive,—I think there would be very little indeed, if an}’, — and 
disposing of it on about seventy-five acres of land specially prepared, 
so that a very large amount of sewage can be used to the acre, — some 
forty thousand gallons to the acre. On ordinary land, not specially 
prepared, only about three thousand gallons can be used. It was 
thought, if this proved successful from an agricultural point of view, 
that the farmers owning the land in the vicinity would desire to have 
a certain portion of the sewage carried on by conduits to their land, 
which they could use. The whole plan w’ould then consist in taking 
this area of seventy-five acres, which would dispose of the whole of 
the sewage of Worcester, and allow farmers in the vicinity to take 
any of the sewage on their land, if they found it for their interest to 
do so. I think in the course of a year or two they would very de¬ 
cidedly prefer to have the sewage carried on their land. There is 
very little land of much value about therfe : it is mostly poor land. 
There is a little good land down by the stream. I think in a very 
short time the farmers would find it to be for their interest to have 
a portion of this sewage carried on to their land ; and ray own impres¬ 
sion is, that that would more than supply the increase in the amount 
of sewage of Worcester from year to year for the next twenty-five or 
fifty years. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) — Let me ask this also, doctor, whether your 


169 


plan assumes the building of a separate sewer or sewers to conduct the 
sewage proper distinct from the ordinary flow of the stream? A .— 
Yes, sir : I think that would be absolutely necessary. The greatest 
measured flow of Mill Brook is 110,000,000 gallons a day. Mr. 
Davis and I went over the estimate very carefully, — the area of the 
water-shed and the size of the sewer; and we supposed that there 
must be, in extreme freshets, 1,000,000,000 gallons a day go down the 
stream. The driest flow which has been measured is 750,000 gallons ; 
but of course that is for a very few days: it would be an exception. 
If even 40,000,000 gallons a day — which is not an uncommon flow — 
had to be disposed of on the land, it would be simply impracticable: 
it could not be done with any reasonable amount of land which could 
be got. We went over that estimate very carefully. I see that Col. 
Waring differs with us on that point; but our chief reason for recom¬ 
mending an entirety separate S 3 'stem of sewers was, that in our opin¬ 
ion, after going through the Mill Brook sewer pretty carefully, and 
estimating its size, etc., it was taxed now to its full capacity in 
freshets, and that any thing which w r ould retard the flow of the water 
at those times, or any thing else which would diminish the size of the 
sewer, such as a culvert running through the centre, w r ould run too 
much risk of so interfering with the function of the sew r er as to choke 
up the lateral sewers and give some trouble in the cellars. Of 
course, I say, there is a difference of opinion on that point. 

Q .—Does your estimate which you have already given of $409,000 
include the cost of the new' sewers? A. — It includes the cost of the 
new sewers, which would be about $181,500. My impression is, 
that the city of Worcester will be compelled to do that in the course 
of time for their own safety, or at least something similar to that, 
because the present condition of things cannot go on. There is no 
doubt about that. They may be able to do it in a modified w^ay at 
less expense, but they certainly cannot rnn sewage through that 
present Mill Brook culvert without doing something different. The 
bottom is vety uneven ; the sewage deposit is enormous every year ; 
and they certainly cannot put that into the condition that it ought to 
be, to carry sewage alone, for less than $100,000. That would be my 
opinion, perhaps. Mr. Davis’s opinion was, that a very large part of 
that, if not the whole of that, would have to be done by the city of 
Worcester at some time or other at all events, or at least some im¬ 
provement upon their present method of carrying their sewage dow r n 
through their main sewer. The present condition of things cannot 
go on. 

Q. (By the Chairman.)— That is to say, if they were not looking 
at all at its effect on the people below them, the necessities of their 
own case would require this to be done? A. — Entirely independent 


% 


160 


of the disposal of the sewage, the simple necessities of the city of 
Worcester itself would require this to be done. A good deal of it is 
badty constructed. 

Q. (By Dr. Chamberlain.) —I want to see if I understand you 
correctly. I understand 3 'ou personally have no doubt with regard 
to the injury to manufactories ; and I also understand 3 ’ou, that you 
have no opinion to give, or that you don’t know that it is detrimental 
to the public health in the town of Millbury? A. — That is not 
exactly what I want to say. I could not say there is no question in 
my mind. The evidence to me is conclusive that the mill-owners are 
very seriously injured ; and my own opinion is, that this condition of 
things is, to a certain extent, injurious to the health of the people 
below Worcester. The point in regard to which I should not want to 
express a positive opinion would be the amount of injury to health. 
I should not be able to decide that point without living in Millbury 
continuously during the summer, or spending a couple of weeks in 
examining pretty carefully the situation ; but that there is a certain 
amount of injury to the public health I have no doubt. 

Q. —From what little you do know, doctor, do you suppose that 
the amount that goes into the river is a detriment to the public 
health? A. — I have no doubt of it. I think that is a point which 
the experience of other countries has settled pretty conclusively. In 
Croydon irrigation has been used fifteen or twenty years, — I do not 
remember the exact number of years, — and the condition of the pub¬ 
lic health has improved there amazingly since its introduction. The 
sewage and water-supply were introduced about the same time. Of 
course, they had their influence ; but it is universally known, that, 
whatever amount of influence such things have on the public health,- 
it is something. As I said before, I do not think such things usually 
show in the death-rate. They are of that kind of things that do not 
kill people. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —I understood you to say, that, although 
the effect was deleterious, it was in a measure offset bj T the general 
purity of the country air? A. — I think I did not say exact.ty that. 

I think I said, although there was a certain amount of injury to health 
there, it could not be so great in a country town as it was in a city, 
on account of the purity of the air. 

Q. (By Dr. Chamberlain.) — What do you mean by the statement 
that Worcester cannot long do this? Do you mean because of its 
injury to the manufactories or to public health? A. — No, sir. I 
say they cannot long continue using their present main sewer in its 
present condition ; for the present main sewer will need reconstruc¬ 
tion, entirely independent of what they do with the sewage, when 
they get it to the outlet. Their main sewer will need a good deal of 
mone}" spent on it. 


161 


Q. (By the Chairman.) —I will trouble } t ou with only one more 
question. What is the general condition of that stream as affected 
by the sewage of Worcester, as far as your observation goes, com¬ 
pared with what it was ten or fifteen years ago? is it growing worse? 
A. — No doubt of that at all. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —I suppose, doctor, your opinions upon 
this subject from your investigation are very fully stated in the re¬ 
port ; that is, you did not come here to modify 3 ’our statement? A. 
— No. 

Q . — Or add any thing to it at all? A. — I came at the request of 
the Committee. I did not know what questions they were to ask me. 

Q. — You have nothing to add to, or take from, or to modify that 
report? A. — No, sir. If I have information the Committee desire, 
I am veiy glad to give it. 

Q. — I want to know whether you wrote the expert report 3 ’our- 
self ? A. — It was written b}’ the commission. I wrote parts of it. 

Q. — It expresses your opinion on the subject fully and completely, 
and you don’t wish to modify it. A .—I don’t know. Probably 
there is scarcely a single paragraph that was written entirely by one 
person. The MS. was gone over and corrected. 

Q. — Carefully revised, with a view of expressing the exact opin¬ 
ion of the Committee? A. —Yes, sir. I think it does express the 
opinion fully. I think there is one typographical error, however. I 
did not happen to see the proof. In one place it says the annual cost 
of treating the sewage is between ten and fifteen thousand dollars, 
and in another between five and ten thousand. That is simply an error. 

Q .—How long ago, doctor, did anybody anywhere, any city, un¬ 
dertake to dispose of its sewage in some other way than by emptying 
it into a running stream or the sea? A. —The first where any thing 
systematic was attempted was the city of Edinburgh very nearly two 
hundred years ago. 

Q. —Where next? A. —My impression is, the next place where 
it was done on any large scale was Croydon. 

Q. — When was that? A. —That was not far from twenty years 
ago, somewhere from fifteen to twenty. I should say perhaps that 
the attempts in the two places were made for entirely different reasons. 
In Edinburgh the owners of the land received some concession from 
the Scotch Government, which it is impossible to get rid of at the 
present day, simply from an economical point of view. They had 
very large dairies ; and this sewage was used to irrigate and fertilize 
the land, and it has been enormously profitable. The matter in Croy¬ 
don came up first as the result of the parliamentary investigations, 


162 




and the pressure to purify the streams. In Milan there has been 
irrigation for a great many years, with a stream running through the 
city ; but that is entirely independent of its containing sewage. The 
land needed the irrigation ; and the amount of sewage in the stream 
was very small, consisting of street-washings, because it was not a 
water-closet town. 

Q. — The Croydon method is by irrigation, I believe? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. —Is that as fair a specimen of the favorable results that you 
get from this kind of treatment as any that you know of? A. —Do 
you mean from a sanitary or economical point of view? 

Q. —From the sanitary point of view. A. — Yes, I think it is 
fully, where so large an amount of sewage is used. It is the onl } 7 
city 7 of that size where its sewage is disposed of in that way in Eng¬ 
land. The amount of sewage in the city of Paris is much larger ; but 
that is the largest town in England that uses the whole of it. 

Q. — How much did }-ou give as the flow of the Blackstone River? 
A. —I think the largest gauged flow was 110,000,000 gallons a da}’. 

Q. — In Blackstone River or Mill Brook? A. —No : I think that 
was in Mill Brook. I won’t be quite sure of that. 

Q. —Isn’t it Piedmont district 3*011 are thinking of? A. —No : I 

think we are right about that. I remember that was Mr.-’s 

statement. I think that was right. 

Q. — The flow of Blackstone River is 110,000,000 gallons a day? 
A. —No : I think that is Mill Brook at the pond, sir. The average 
flow for the year was about 13,000,000 gallons. 

Q. — Now, with regard to the death-rate, doctor, what is the 
object of collecting these death-rates, and reporting them } r ear by 
year? Is it not with reference to ascertaining the condition of the 
public health? A .—Undoubtedly. The conditions, of course, which 
affect the public health are so various that it is almost impossible to 
pick out any one factor and say the death-rate is lower from this 
cause, or higher from that cause. The only thing a person can do 
with regard to that is to estimate as nearly as he can. 

Q. —The Blackstone River, I take it, is not in an} T such condition 
as the Cro}’don sewage before it was treated? A. —The Blackstone 
River or Mill Brook? 

Q. — Blackstone River in Millbury ? A. — The sewage of Croj’don, 
if I remember correctly, discharged into a stream which must be con¬ 
siderably smaller than Blackstone River, — it did before the sewage 
system, —but still it is quite a considerable stream. I remember I 
saw it in the summer-time, and it was then nothing but a mere brook. 

Q. — It originally discharged into that stream without treatment, 
and twenty years ago they began the treatment? A. —Yes, sir: 
about that time. I wouldn’t be sure of the number of years. 



163 


Q . (By Dr. Harris.) — Is it, or not, a pretty well-settled principle 
now that sewage should not be turned into an}’ running stream? A. 

Well, I think that is very largely a question of practicability. 
The German Government has passed very stringent laws upon that 
point; and some of the larger cities of Germany have held off from 
introducing sewerage on that account, because the} 7 cannot discharge 
into the rivers. It seems to me that each city must judge by itself if 
the evil is less from discharging it into the stream than by not hav¬ 
ing sewerage at all. If the stream is large enough, and the condi¬ 
tions are proper, it should be discharged into it. It is only a ques¬ 
tion of practicability. 

Q •—You stated, I think, that you noticed that the breathing of 
this sewage air by the people of Millbury had a depressing effect upon 
the inhabitants, and did affect their health to some extent? A .—I 
did not state that as a matter of fact. I stated that as a matter 
of my opinion. I don’t think there are any facts which one can 
show to positively.prove that; but in going about among the people 
there, seeing the conditions, and talking with them, as we did 
one morning, I convinced msyelf that it had a certain amount of 
influence on the health: how much I should not care to say. 

Q. —And probably indirectly upon the death-rate? A. —I don’t- 
know about that: possibly. 

Q. — Would it not be the natural sequence, that if a person was 
not in a good condition to resist disease, and was exposed to this 
atmosphere, and various causes which induce even acute diseases, he 
would be less able to resist them if his system was depressed? Would 
it not necessarily result, in your opinion, that there might be more 
deaths? A. — I think that is quite possible. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Did you, in the investigations of your 
committee or board, go into the question as to what constitutes a 
nuisance, — whether caused by sew’age, or caused by something else, 

— some other substance in the river? A. —I think there are two 
features which the committee observed in looking over it. I think 
there is a certain amount of deposit, independent of sewage, that 
cannot help being very impure in a river of that sort, and water-shed 
of that kind, of course. 

Q. — Did you undertake to estimate the proportion of each? A. 

— There is no way of doing it. You cannot tell by chemical analy¬ 
sis, and you cannot tell by the appearance of the deposit. There is 
no way of doing it, as far as I know. 

Q. — From what you saw, should you judge that was mainly due to 
the sewage, or mainly due to other material? A. —I think tin 
trouble in the mills is chiefly due to the sewage ; and, of course, ir 
the sewage of Worcester is included their manufacturing refuse. Am 


164 


what has caused the filling up of some of the dams, diminishing the 
area, I think must be due to other causes besides the sewage, as well 
as to the sewage. In a city like Worcester, there must be an immense 
filling of sand, gravel, earth, etc., carried down the stream inde¬ 
pendent of there being sewers connecting with water-closets, etc. 
It is difficult to estimate how far it is the product of one or the 
other. 

Q .—Perhaps I should say I mean by “sewage” the house-sew¬ 
age, not washings from the street, and not the material from manu¬ 
factories, but sewage proper. A. —Well, it is impossible to sepa¬ 
rate the factors in such a case as that, and say how far the trouble is 
due to one part of the sewage, how far to the manufactories, how far 
to street-washings, and how far to sand, loam, or earth. I don’t 
know of an}’ way of doing it. 

Q. —You have no doubt all these different elements, of course, do 
contribute in producing the condition of things that exists? A .— 
Ever} 7 thing excepting the smell. Of course the smell is produced 
by decomposing organic matter, and that comes from the sewage 
proper. 

Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) —Did you make any examination of the 
river for the purpose of ascertaining what proportion of the pollution 
was caused by the manufactories? A .—That varies a good deal 
from time to time, and the same mills would discharge very variable 
quantities of refuse matter. At the time Singletary Brook discharges 
into Mill River, the pollution is so variable that there are six or seven 
kinds of impurity. We were not able to make any chemical examina¬ 
tion which would show r how much manufacturing refuse there was in 
the sewage, — a point rather difficult to show from chemistry. 

Q. —One other question. What effect upon the water of the 
brook does the coloring matter used in these mills, in your judgment, 
have upon the pollution of the stream? A. —Well, is there a good 
deal of coloring matter used there ? 

Q. —There is some: yes. A. —I don’t remember that there 
were many that used a great deal of coloring matter. There were 
some wffiere there would be a certain amount of refuse. From the 
ironworks, — twenty-six, I believe, all together, —there would be a 
certain amount of acid, of course, from them. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) — It has been testified here that they can¬ 
not get cloth as white as it ought to be ; and some question arose 
whether the trouble was due to the Worcester sewage, or perhaps the 
iron-works. A .—I should think the mill-owners themselves could 
answer that question better than I can. They know the kind of water 
they need, and the precise character of the trouble. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) —Do the chemicals which they use in their 


165 


coloring — soda-ash and potash — necessarily pollute the water ? 
A. —Used in the mills by them? 

Q’ — Yes, sir. A. —Any thing of that sort wouldn’t injure the 
water, perhaps, for cleansing. Sulphuric acid might, and some other 
chemicals than soda and potash. 

Q • —I mean its effect upon the health, producing this bad smell in 
the water: whether those chemicals would necessarily produce a bad 
smell in the water? A. —I should say from the character of the 
mills there, that, if an}^ thing, those in Worcester would rather have 
an opposite effect, — an effect as disinfectants. I am not sure upon 
that point. I think in our report we don’t state the ingredients used. 
I think we state the character of the materials the mills use. 

Q. —The Washburn Mills, I understand, have used a great deal of 
sulphuric acid in cleansing wire. I wish to inquire about that being 
in the water: whether it would render it impure in relation to public 
health, so far as the public health is concerned? A. —I should say 
not. A number of woollen and cotton mills, I should say, would dis¬ 
charge a certain amount of dirt in the river, those that do any cleans¬ 
ing. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —It has been said that certain machinery, 
wheels, etc., had become corroded by the water. Now, is that due, 
in your opinion, to sewage properly so called, or due to the discharge 
from some manufacturing establishment or establishments? A. —A 
certain amount of that would be due to sewage. The general process 
of oxidization, if brought in contact with the iron, would produce a 
certain amount of oxidization, but not great. I should say it was 
more likely to come from chemicals in the water. 


TESTIMONY OF COL. GEORGE E. WARING, Jun. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.)— Col. Waring, what is your profession? 
A. — Sanitary engineer. 

Q .—Will you state to the Committee what attention you have 
given to sanitary matters? A. — My attention has been devoted 
very largely to works of sanitary improvement for the last sixteen 
or seventeen years, and in a general way for fifteen years before 
that. 

Q. — Well, without asking for too many details, will you state 
o-enerally to the Committee what works you have been connected 
with, what opportunities you have had for observing what is neces¬ 
sary and what can be done for sanitary improvements ? A. The 
first public work with which I was connected was the drainage of 
Central Park in New York. From there I went into the army ; and 
since the war, or rather since 1867, I have been more or les9 occu- 


166 


pied with giving advice as to the improvement of houses and towns, 
making plans for sewerage, and investigating with reference to the 
disposal of sewage where there was no good natural means for the 
inoffensive delivery, or where that means of disposal was an alter¬ 
native to be considered. 

Q. — In the course of your study and work, have you gone abroad 
and studied the s}’stems in use there? A. —Yes : several times. 

Q. — How extensive an observation have you had there? A .—I 
have seen the works at a number of towns in England, at Paris, Ber¬ 
lin, and at Dantzic on the Baltic. 

Q. — Now, coming down to our case here, will you state to the 
Committee when your attention was first called to the Blackstone 
River? A .—The subject was first brought to my notice, I think, 
about the first of August last; and soon after that time I made an 
•examination of the ground. 

Q. — That was at the request of the town of Millbury? A .— 
That was at the request of the town of Millbury. I was about leav¬ 
ing for Europe, and was therefore obliged to leave the collection of 
engineering details to an assistant. 

Q .— What personal examination did } T ou make of the river? A. 
— I went from Worcester, from the outlet of the main sewer, as far 
south as Binding’s mill-dam. M} t attention was directed chiefly to 
the character of land that might be used for the purification of the 
sewage. 

Q .—You went to the factory, did you? Binding’s Mill? A .—I 
went to a mill; but whether it was Binding’s Mill, I don’t know. 

Q.—You ma} T continue, if you please, and state further in regard 
to this matter. A. — My attention was given chiefly to the character 
of the land available, with or without pumping, for the purpose of 
sewage. Incidentally, in the course of the examination, I saw the 
condition of the Blackstone River at different points. I was made 
cognizant of the fact that it seemed to be in a polluted condition ; 
but my professional attention was not called or directed specially to 
the degree of pollution. The question submitted to me was one 
which assumed that the river was polluted, and that means were to 
be adopted to remedj’ the pollution. It was onl}’ with reference to 
that, I visited the ground. 

Q. —Have you, Col. Waring, with a view to stating concisely your 
views here this morning, prepared a statement? A .— Yes: I was 
requested to put in form my general views on the subject. 

Q. —Won’t you read it, or make such use of it as you please, and 
then state to the Committee the results of that examination? A. — 
It will perhaps state what T should say discursively in a much more 


concise manner. 


167 


So far as I understand the scope of the question to be considered 
by your Committee, it relates to the Act of the Legislature of 1867, 
authorizing the city of Worcester to change the channel of Mill Brook, 
and convert it into a common sewer, as giving an implied right to 
use that sewer in such a manner as to deliver foul and offensive mat¬ 
ter into the natural water-course of the Blackstone River. Also to 
determine to what extent it is practicable for the city to use the drain- 
age rights thus conferred without such pollution of the Blackstone 
River. I assume that it is with reference to these points that I have 
been called upon to testify, not as to the general question of the right 
ot a riparian occupier to pollute a natural water-course in such a 
manner as to affect the health or the comfort of those past whose 
lands the later course of the river flows. This portion of the general 
question either has been or must be decided as a question of pro¬ 
prietary 7 right, in which, as I take it, legislation must be subject to 
well-established principles. 

Under all ancient practice, a sewer is only a drain, a channel for 
the removal of waters which the proper enjoyment of territory re¬ 
quires to be removed. Until well into the present century, this was 
probably the only meaning of the term ; and up to that time the office 
of a sewer was simply to furnish a safe outlet for rain-water, for soil- 
water, for the overflow or backing up of streams, etc. The use of 
these sewers for the.removal of excrementitious and other refuse mat¬ 
ters is very 7 recent. In Boston, according to Mr. Elliott C. Clark, as 
late as 1833, and in England much later, the admission of foul mat¬ 
ters was prohibited. The use of common sewers for foul drainage is 
an assumption of recent date, which has grown up largely^ through 
neglect, and with no well-determined conception of the ultimate effect 
to be produced. It is not at all in my province to consider the de¬ 
gree to which the Legislature, in giving this right to the city of 
Worcester, contemplated the use of the Mill Brook sewer for the re¬ 
moval of organic wastes. Certainly, under the circumstances of the 
case, the removal of rain-water and of subsoil water, so far as this was 
necessary, was contemplated ; and such removal, in conformity with 
the long-recognized office of sewers, was proper, and could not 
be objected to by 7 the inhabitants of Millbury or by other residents 
along the Blackstone River. The ground of their complaint relates, 
not at all to such legitimate use of an artificial channel of drainage, 
but entirely to what, under the circumstances, must be regarded as 
an improper use of the right of the city 7 . It relates solely 7 to there 
being added to the effluent water the varied off-seourings of a large 
industrial community^. Neither is it within my province to consider 
the degree to which the Blackstone River has been polluted by: these 
off-scourings : that is a question of fact, to be decided according to 


168 


the testimony of those who are personally cognizant of it to a greatei 
extent than I am. Probably, if the very existence of the Worcester 
community depended on the discharge of foul water into the Mill 
Brook sewer, and equally on the discharge of the unpurified effluent 
of the Mill Brook sewer into the Blackstone River, there would be a 
justification for the continuance of the present state of things. Even 
then that community should be allowed to enjoy this vital privilege 
only on the condition of making full compensation to all whose rights 
had suffered from its act. That the people of Millbury and others 
living along the Blackstone River do so suffer, I assume after a per¬ 
sonal examination and from analog}". The leading question, there¬ 
fore, is, Is the present condition necessary to the existence of the 
community? This question, I think, would be answered in the nega¬ 
tive by any person who had paid more than casual attention to such 
subjects. There are two means of relief which it is open for the 
authorities of Worcester to adopt, either one of which would keep out 
of the Blackstone River the impurities complained of. The first 
would be to withhold from this common sewer, and, incidentally, from 
all of the sewers of the city, all manner of foul substances. The 
streets may be submitted to such a system of scavenging as will pre¬ 
vent the accumulation of horse-manure and other offensive matters on 
the surface, to be washed into the sewers by the rainfall; every house 
may be disconnected from the sewer ; its liquid wastes may be col¬ 
lected in tight cesspools, to be emptied by pneumatic process, and its 
garbage may be cared for by separate removal; every factory which 
produces foul wastes may, without oppression, be compelled to adopt 
some of the known suitable methods for purifying the water which its 
processes have made impure. This being done, the water discharged 
by the Mill Brook sewer, which will still serve its legitimate purpose 
of a sewer, will be substantially purified; and all cause for complaint 
on the part of the residents along the Blackstone River will cease. 

Lest this be considered an unprecedented condition, I beg to refer 
to the report of Sir John Hawkshaw on the purification of ‘the 
River Clyde. In his general recommendations he says, “I have not 
attempted to enumerate all the various kinds of work and manu¬ 
factories which contribute to the pollution of the streams and rivers 
of the Clyde district, nor all the mechanical or chemical processes 
which have been tried or recommended as means for purifying the 
liquids hitherto run to waste in such works and manufactories. The 
works, and many of the processes in question, are described in the 
valuable reports of the River-Pollution Commission, to which I beg 
to refer. I have made myself acquainted with previous inquiries, 
and have obtained information enough, I think, to justify me in 
believing my recommendations to be practicable of application, and 


169 


that if they are adopted the } 7 will secure the end in view. Those 
who own and manage works and manufactories have been wholly 
under control, and can therefore provide and enforce the necessary 
provisions and regulations for removing the nuisances which they so 
often create. ... It should be enacted that solid and dry refuse, 
not including under that term faecal matters, should immediately 
cease to be conveyed or thrown or placed so as to fall or be carried 
into the Clyde or its tributaries. It should be enacted, that, after a 
definite period, which might be fixed at eighteen months, no faecal 
matter or urine from manufactories or public works should, except 
under special license from sanitary commissioners, be passed into the 
Clyde or its tributaries. Within eighteen months it should be practi¬ 
cable, in most cases, to make provision for keeping back these offen¬ 
sive matters.” 

He would throw upon manufacturers the duty of purifying their 
manufacturing waste, and he recommends earth-closets for the domes¬ 
tic use of the people. 

In Paris, until very recently, the water-closet matter, and even the 
chamber-slops of houses, was by law delivered into tight cesspools, 
to be emptied from time to time. Even now there is only an insig¬ 
nificant exception in the case of persons who adopt a certain pre¬ 
scribed straining apparatus, which allows the liquid portions thus 
produced to pass into the sewers. In many towns in England, gen¬ 
erally as the result of judicial or legislative restrictions, the devices 
above indicated, or their equivalent, have been adopted, and are 
systematically carried out, with the direct purpose of preventing the 
pollution of rivers. In nearly every city on the continent of Europe, 
sometimes with this object, but more often with the view of preserv¬ 
ing a valuable manure, there is and always has been an entire with¬ 
holding of such wastes from the sewers, which are constructed to 
remove storm-water only. In fact, more precedent by far can be 
found for the above-prescribed course than for any other method of 
treating domestic and industrial wastes. Please understand that I do 
not make this suggestion as a recommendation. I realize very fully 
that for this restriction to be placed upon a community like that of 
Worcester would be nothing less than an economical and sanitary 
calamity. It would inevitably lay a cumbersome tax on all its peo¬ 
ple, and would lead to serious injury to the public health. I suggest 
it only as a possible means by which that community may, without 
sacrificing its existence, and without destroying its property, concen¬ 
trate upon itself the disadvantages which it seems not averse to 
inflict upon others. 

Fortunately no such radical and retrograde action is necessary. 
There are other means, well known, long tried, and fully demonstrated 


170 


to be successful, by which the trouble complained of can be averted 
at small expense, leaving the city in the full enjoyment of its costly 
sewerage works. There can, of course, be no objection, at least, no 
legal objection, to the deliver}’ of all the foul drainage of Worcester 
into the Mill Brook sewer. That whole sewer lies within its bound¬ 
aries, and is under its exclusive jurisdiction. The people of Mill- 
bury have no right, and, as I understand it, the}’ have no desire, to 
interfere in any manner with the use of the sewer. They do claim, 
and it seems to me that they have the right to claim, — certainly 
other peoples have made the claim, and have been sustained in it, — 
that before the water of the sewer is restored to the Blackstone River, 
a river originally pure, but now polluted, they shall take from it 
again that which, for their own convenience but without real neces¬ 
sity, they have added to it. There are many ways in which these 
objectionable matters may be withdrawn from the water of the sewer 
before it is returned to the river. The experts of the State Board of 
Health have indicated one means, I have indicated another ; and there 
are still others, some of which competent engineers might consider 
preferable to either of these. 

As the authority of the Committee and of the Legislature over this 
matter probably stops short of the prescription of the particular means 
to be adopted, it is hardly worth while here to discuss the details of 
any of these plans, or to do any thing more than to show that one, or 
several of them, is capable of affording the relief sought. Fortu¬ 
nately this is an easy task. The entire sewage of Dantzic on the 
Baltic Sea, where the climate is quite as severe as anywhere in New 
England, has the entire effluent of its very complete system of 
sewerage well purified, winter and summer, by surface irrigation. 
About one-eighth of the sewage of Paris, made very foul by the re¬ 
moval of street-dirt in a putrid condition by the sewers, and by the 
very considerable contamination coming from public urinals, and 
other sources, is perfectly purified by agricultural processes on the 
plain of Gfennevilliers. A large portion of Berlin now sends all of 
its sewage to the irrigation-fields at Osdorf, where it is completely 
purified. Croydon in England, which is a larger city than Worcester, 
has most successful purification-works close to its border. The great 
health resort, Malvern, purifies its sewage by intermittent filtration. 
So does Kendall in the North, Leamington, and Rugby use broad irri¬ 
gation. Over fifty other towns in England purify their sewage in a 
similar manner. The places named I have visited personally, and 
have made a careful examination of their purification-works. I might 
cite other towns where satisfactory purification is effected by chemical 
processes ; but these seem to me so unsuited to the conditions we are 
considering, that the discussion of chemical purification is hardly 


171 


worth while. Suitable works on either of the plans submitted can, 
with entire safety, be adopted for Worcester. Mr. Rawlinson, the 
Chief Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board, says, 
in his “ Suggestion as to the Preparation of District Maps, and of 
Plans for Improved Sewage,” etc., u It is persistently urged by some 
parties that fluid sewage corrupts the soil over which it is spread, and 
produces malaria in the atmosphere over a sewage-farm. . . . The 
tacts are, that continued irrigation, with foul, corrupt sewage in exces¬ 
sive volume, for very man}' years, as at Cragintinney Meadows, near 
Edinburgh, has failed to produce a sewage-swamp to corrupt the soil or 
to produce malaria injurious to health.” That there is any peculiarity 
in the climate or in the soil of Worcester which indicates a special 
difficulty in the adoption of the processes of purification by agricul¬ 
tural treatment, is clearly disproved by the long and satisfactory expe¬ 
rience in this very manner in connection with the insane hospital 
located there. I think all engineers who have given attention to the 
subject will agree with me in the broad proposition that there is no 
reason why the effluent of the Mill Brook sewer may not be made 
practically pure for an outlay much less serious than would be that 
required for the only permissible alternative, —the withholding of all 
the foul wastes of the population of Worcester from the sewers of that 
city. We probably should not agree as to the best means for accom¬ 
plishing the desired result; but on the main question there can be no 
difference of opinion. Probably, also, there would be no difference 
of opinion as to the proposition that this purification may be accom¬ 
plished for a sum much less than the amount of the damage inflicted, 
and hereafter to be inflicted, on the population of the Blackstone 
Valley, within the State of Massachusetts, leaving out of the con¬ 
sideration the suit for injunction which is quite sure, if relief is not 
found, to be instituted by the adjoining State of Rhode Island. 

Q. — That last sentence leads me to ask you whether, as a resident 
of Rhode Island, you have any knowledge of the feeling of the 
people of that State? A. —The subject has been discussed among 
those interested in sanitary matters ; and, as I understand it, the 
people in the north part of the State are apprehending serious trouble 
from the pollution of the Blackstone River, ascribing that pollution, 
of course, not only to the city of Worcester, but to the population 
along its whole course. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.)—Y ou are retained as engineer by the 
town of Millbury? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you ever studied law? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Have you given any attention to equity practice at all ? A. . 


172 




— I have never been a law student. I have had necessarily to study 
the legal bearings of questions involved in cases like this. 

Q. — What works upon that subject have you studied? A .— I 
can’t give the titles of them, sir. 

Q. —You hardly would want to claim that you are a legal expert? 
A. — Decidedly not. 

Q. — You were employed to report a plan for the purification of 
this sewage, which has been published in the Report of the State 
Board of Health and Lunacy and Charit}*, I think? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —That expresses your view pretty fully upon the subject, does 
it not? A. —I can’t say it expresses my view very fully. I neces¬ 
sarily made that report in great haste ; and, if I were to re-w r rite it 
more deliberately, I should add very much to it. 

Q. — Do you desire to modif} T any opinions you expressed there? 
A. — I do not. 

Q. — You speak about an injunction. Do you mean to say that 
proceedings are being instituted, or about to be instituted, to enjoin? 
A. — Not at all. Only in the natural course of events, as the popu¬ 
lation of the valley of the Blackstone River in Massachusetts in¬ 
creases, if it continues to throw its off-scourings into the river, the 
people will do something to prevent it. I only spoke of it as an 
injunction quite sure to be asked for. 

Q. — You have no idea of the court it would be issued from? 
A. — From the United States court, I suppose. 

Q. — You speak about the use of sewers for the purpose of carry¬ 
ing off foul matter as a recent thing, if I understand it? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — Do you know when the Fleet-street sewer was built? A. — I 
don’t know what year the Fleet-street sewer was built; but I know 
that long after it was built it was part of the system that household 
waste and excrementitious matter was excluded from. 

Q. — Fleet Brook was a pretty clean brook originally? A. — It 
was a brook running through a dense population, and there was no 
sew'age in the city. 

Q■ — When was Ludgate-hill sewer built? A .—That I couldn’t 
tell you. 

Q. —Wasn’t it built more than two hundred } T ears ago? and didn’t 
it carry off the excrementitious matters of the city from the begin¬ 
ning ? A. —No, sir: it only carried off so much as washed from 
the surface of the ground. 

Q. —Mr. Rudolph Hering is a pretty good and reliable sanitary 
engineer? A. —So far as I know, he is a very careful man. 

Q. — He gave a report recently to the National Board of Health 
upon this whole subject? A .—Yes, sir. 


173 


Q • —You are familiar with it, I suppose? A. —I haven’t read it. 
I have run over it, and read portions of it here and there. Strictly, 
I have not read it; but I am not entirely without knowledge of it. 

Q • — The Croydon farm you have seen? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q> —That is a good specimen of a. favorable result, is it? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q . —How large was the stream into which the Croydon sewage is 
emptied, after treatment, or before treatment, prior to the construc¬ 
tion of the works ? A. — At the point where I crossed it, I should 
say that the footbridge was about fifty feet long, and that the river 
occupied pretty nearly that width, perhaps forty feet, and was a 
clear, rippling stream ; what we should call here a large brook. 

Q. — What did they call it? A. — The Wandle. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —How large a place is Dantzic? A .— 
Dantzic has a population of a hundred thousand, I think. 

Q. — You speak of the climate in your report: how does that com¬ 
pare with the climate of Worcester? A. — I think that they have 
colder weather at times in every winter than the } 7 have ordinarily at 
Worcester. I think their extremes are somewhat colder. They have 
a long-continued and very severe winter. Their temperatures are kept 
by a scale that I never have encountered before, and I have never 
made any comparison between that and the Fahrenheit scale except 
as to the extremes. 

Q .—In cold weather when the ground is frozen, is it practicable 
to use the irrigating process? A. —Yes, sir; or rather the irrigat¬ 
ing process very largely prevents the freezing of the ground. 

Q. — So that you would consider in our ordinary winter weather 
it would be possible to use this same mode of purifying the sewage 
of Worcester? A. —Perfectly so, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —At Berlin don’t they have large stor¬ 
ing reservoirs to retain the sewage during the winter? A. — No, sir. 
The sewage of the principal works which I saw, which serve about 
one-fifth of the city, have a pumping-well, I should say, of about the 
capacity of this room. The pumping is emptied directly into pipes 
which discharge into the distributing channels of the sewage-irriga¬ 
tion farm. 

Q. — The question I asked was, whether they did not have a large 
reservoir to store, basins to store the sewage during the winter? 
A. — No, sir. 

Q. —This statement with regard to the sewage at Berlin, is that cor¬ 
rect? — “ All of the sewage is to be pumped and distributed over two 
farms for irrigation and filtration, —one to the north-east for the part 
of the city north of the Spree ; the other to the south for the southern 
portion. The former is at Falkenberg, six miles from the centre of 


174 


Berlin, with an elevation of a hundred and two feet above the Spree, 
and an area of two thousand and fifty acres. The level portions are 
used for filtration and winter storage, the gently sloping areas for the 
furrow system, and greater slopes for broad irrigation. A novel fea¬ 
ture are the winter basins, into which the sewage is turned, after 
vegetation ceases, to a depth of two feet, and allowed to soak away.” 
A. —He is not describing the sewage : he is describing the downward 
filtration system. 

Q .—These basins, then, are for the downward filtration system? 
A. — Yes, sir. While I have read parts of Mr. Hering’s report, I 
have no knowledge of that part of it to which you have referred. 


TESTIMONY OF Dli. HENRY P. WALCOTT. 

Q. (By Mr. Mouse.) —Doctor, you have come in at our request, 
have you not, to state to the Committee the result of your observations 
of the Blackstone River? A. —l r es, sir. I have come in to answer 
any questions the Committee may desire to ask me with regard to the 
substance of this river. 

Q. — How long have you been connected with the State Board of 
Health? A. —Nearly two years. 

Q. — During that time what personal observation have you had of 
the river? A. —I have had a good deal. I examined the river pre¬ 
vious to my appointment on this commission ; and upon the commis¬ 
sion I visited the river frequently, and saw it under man}’ different 
conditions. 

Q. —Will you state to the Committee whether or not, in your 
judgment, the condition of things consequent upon the turning of the 
Worcester sewage into the river is such now, and promises to be such 
hereafter, that it is likely to affect the public health of that valley ? 
A. — I think it is. 

Q. — Whether or not, in your judgment, it is an evil that requires 
some attention? A. —Yes, sir : I think it does. 

Q. — Now, doctor, I assume that you can hardly add any thing to 
what you have said in your report as to the best practicable plan ; but 
I wish to know, in the beginning, whether or not you are of opinion 
that a method can be adopted at a reasonable cost which will prevent 
the evil ? A. — I think there is no question that some system of irri¬ 
gation can dispose of the evil entirely. 

Q. — What is your judgment as to the best system? 

Mr. Goulding. Is it expected the doctor is going to change his 
views? 

Mr. Morse. Not at all; but still, for the purpose of completing the 
report, I would like to have him state. 


175 


Witness. I have seen no reason to alter the recommendation of 
the report I signed. 

Q‘ —In brief, what did you there recommend as the best system? 
A. —A system of downward filtration. 

Q • —The one described by Dr. Folsom? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Would you agree with Dr. Folsom in the statement he made? 
A. — Entirety. 

Q. — I want to ask in regard to one member of your commission, 
Mr. Davis, whetheror not he is a civil engineer of great experience 
and high standing? A. —Yes, sir : I think there can be no question 
of his very high standing. 

Q . — What is his present position ? A. — It is not that of an en¬ 
gineer. He has some connection with a New York telephone com¬ 
pany. 

Q. — He was engineer of the Boston system of sewage? A. — Yes, 

sir. 

Q. — This large system in process of construction now ? A. — 
Yes, sir; and preparatory to that he was sent abroad, and made a 
very thorough examination of the most approved modes of sewage 
disposal. 

Q. (By Dr. Chamberlain.) —Is it your opinion that the sewerage 
turned into that river now, — I don’t mean twenty-five years hence, 
— is it your opinion the sewerage to-day is detrimental to public 
health? A. — Yes, I think it is. 

Q. — To an\’ considerable extent? A. — Not yet to a considerable 
extent. 

Mr. Morse. I ought to say, in reference to your suggestion 
about touching the matter gingerly, I only did so for the purpose of 
saving time. The report of the doctor was put in. I do not want to 
go through the details of it. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.)—I suppose that you intended (it is 
hardly necessary to ask you the question), but you intended to express 
your views fully and clearly, not including any matters that were not 
property relevant in your report? A. — In as few words as possible : 
yes, sir. 

Q. — You haven’t changed your views about it in any way? A. — 
No, sir, not at all. 

Q, _Whether you didn’t understand from the terms of the resolu- 

lution that you were bound to report some plan or other, if there was 
any, to the Legislature? A. —I didn’t understand that it was any 
part of the business of the commission to determine the fact as to the 
existence of a nuisance. 


Q. —You assumed that some plan was to be reported to dispose of 
the sewage of Worcester without following the Blackstone River? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — And you assumed the pollution? A. — I think we were not 
asked to report upon the fact of the pollution. 

Q. — But to report a plan for purifying that sewage? A . — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Is there any question about the fact that 
the State Board of Health for several years, including your own term, 
has reported that the river is polluted? A. —The } 7 have always used 
very strong language on the subject, and represent it as the most 
polluted stream in Massachusetts. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —What do you understand the question 
submitted to you was? A. —To devise a plan for the purification of 
the sewerage of the city of Worcester, and relieve Blackstone River. 
We were not asked, as I understand it, to determine the question 
whether there was pollution or not, as a preliminary to that report. 

Mr. Morse. But the doctor states that the Board of Health have 
reported for several years it is the most polluted river in Massachu¬ 
setts. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Their reports will show for themselves 
what they did report? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — And when they have reported as to the pollution of that 
river, they have stated their proposition in the terms in which they 
intended to state their proposition, as far as you know? A . — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. —And their reports will, therefore, show what they meant? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goulding. Then, we do not need any glossary upon it at 
present. 

The Chairman. I think it was in the mind of the Committee (of 
course, we may not have looked over the whole subject) that your 
commission was to report to the Legislature what, in the judgment 
of the commission, it was advisable to do, taking into consideration 
the practicability of doing any thing, and also the amount of damage 
that was being done. I think the Legislature intended to cover the 
whole matter. 

Witness. Mr. Chairman, you must remember this commission is 
the creature of the State Board of Health, and not of the Legisla¬ 
ture. What the Legislature intended to do in the matter, I do not 
know. I have answered the questions with regard to the action of 
this commission. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) — Doctor, whether or not, in your judgment, 
from such observation as you have made of the river, it is in such 


177 


condition that some system of purification ought to be adopted, with 
proper regard to the health of the inhabitants of the valley? A .— 
Yes, sir: I think it has got to that point when something must be 
done. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Do you feel pretty sure, from the investi¬ 
gations of your commission, that to purify the river, so far as relates 
to Worcester sewage, will relieve the nuisance? A. —Well, I think 
that any measure of that sort will have to be accompanied by further 
measures for the reduction of manufacturing waste. If the river is 
to be purified, it has got to be free*from manufacturing waste as well 
as sewage. 

Q- — If you should purify the city of Worcester, would the Black- 
stone River be a free river below the Singletary Stream? A. — If 
the}* don’t purify the Singletary Stream, which is a very small 
stream, and the Blackstone is a large one, it would not be clean. 
The Singletary Stream is a very impure stream, — no question about 
that. 

Q. (By Committee.) — Is the factory-waste a detriment to the 
public health,—this coloring matter? A .—The coloring matter I 
don’t think is. I think the matters from washing wool are unques¬ 
tionably detrimental. I don’t think the logwood amounts to any 
thing. 


TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. WHITIN. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You live where? A. — I live in Whitins- 
ville, town of Northbridge. 

Q. —You are engaged in business at Rockdale? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How far below the mouth of the sewer is Rockdale on the 
river? A. —Well, by road it is twelve miles from Rockdale to 
Worcester. I suppose the sewer is about two miles below. I should 
suppose, by the running of the river, probably fifteen miles, as it is 
a circuitous stream. 

Q. — You have heard the testimony of those who have testified as 
to the condition of the river, — either heard it or read it. Does your 
experience in a measure agree with theirs? A. —Yes, it does. Of 
course the river is not as impure below, at Rockdale or Northbridge, 
as it is at Millbury; because at Farnumsville just below Fisherville 
we get the water from Quinsigamond, which is probably half the 
stream, and purifies the water as much as that amount more of water 
would purify it. 

Q. — Have you any hesitation in saying even at Rockdale the con¬ 
tamination from the sewage is such as to be a nuisance to you in your 
business there? A.— No, sir. In 1873 I had occasion to build a 


178 


bulkhead for the water to drain down ; and last year we drew the 
water down from the Providence and Worcester Railroad some ten 
days in order to give them an opportunity to put in a bridge, and the 
condition of the pond was very much more impure; that is, before it 
was mud, more of a clean mud. Last year it was slimy, sticky mud, 
and offensive. It affected our boilers more or less. In 1857, when the 
mill started, we used to blow the boilers off once a month. Now we 
do so every day; not that it is absolutely necessary to blow it off 
every da} 7 the whole year, but there are seasons of the year when we 
have freshets that it is necessary to blow it off, and therefore we 
make it a rule. Certainly it is necessary to do it as often as once 
in three days. Some five or six years ago I had occasion to clean 
the river out below me : it got filled up with gravel, and I found under 
the banks of the river it was very offensive. You who know the 
Blackstone River know it is a sandy river on the banks, and a sedi¬ 
ment collected under there which was very offensive. Until last year 
cattle or horses never refused to drink the water when the mill 
was stopped. Last year, when the mill was stopped, they refused to 
drink the water: there was a bad odor to it after a freshet. For 
instance, in February of last year, the water had run comparatively 
pure, because we had a very dry season. We used to have fall 
freshets, but for some reason they don’t come as early. Last year, 
gentlemen on the Committee will remember, we were short of water 
until the first part of February. Then we had a freshet, and the 
water ran very impure there for a week or ten days. It was yellowish 
water; and there was so much of it, it ran a long ways down the 
stream, coloring the river: then it ran pure. 

Q. —The dam at Rockdale is an old dam? A. — Yes, sir. There 
has been a dam at Rockdale for seventy years. There was a dam 
there when Worcester was but a village. 

Q. — How about the Riverdale dam ? A. —Longer than that. 

Q. — Farnumsville ? A. — Sixty years. 

Q. —Fisherville? A. —I don’t know about that. They take 
their water some ways below Saundersville. I don’t know in regard 
to that dam. 

Q. —Whether or no the people in Northbridge other than the 
manufacturers have a general interest in this agitation? Has any 
action been taken by the town in appointing committees? A .— 
Well, what is for the interest of a part is for the interest of the 
whole. We had an article in the warrant last year upon appointing 
a committee to secure some action about taking the sewerage out of 
Blackstone River. Of course it wouldn’t affect the westerly part of 
the town as it would the easterly part, except that what is an injury 
or benefit to one portion is to the other. 


179 


Q*—As one familiar with the manufacturing of Blackstone Val¬ 
ley* the effect of taking down all the dams would be what upon the 
industries of that valle}’? A. —Well, the effect to the vallej’ of 
taking down the dams would be to deprive the property of so much 
power that it would produce, in my judgment, such a condition of 
things that it would be utterly impossible for anybody to live there. 

Q*— How about the river becoming contaminated as Worcester in¬ 
creases in size? 

Mr. Goulding. Is Mr. Whitin supposed to know any thing about 
that? 

Mr. Fla.gg. He is supposed to know about the Blackstone-river 
Valley for a number of 3 ’ears. He is an expert on that very point. 

A .—If the dams were all taken down and the water should be 
shut back of a Saturday, or an} r time when the mills stopped, and 
there was nothing to collect this impurity, instead of having the 
water purified from the sewage in it that comes from the city of 
Worcester, the w T ater would cease running at Cherryville, perhaps at six 
o’clock in the afternoon, and there would be nothing after that water 
got down to dilute the sewage that comes from the city of Worcester, 
and it would be then exposed to the rays of the sun, with nothing to 
dilute it or purify it until the time the water reached it again. And 
# I have no question from the condition of things when w r e have been 
obliged to draw our pond off, the valley would be in such a condition 
that no one could live there. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Wouldn’t it be better to keep the ponds 
up all the way there, and not draw them down at all? A. —Will 
you allow me to ask a question in answer to that? 

Q. — No, sir. 

Mr. Flagg. You may answer it as you see fit. 

A. — Yes, sir: I think it would be better to keep the ponds up, 
provided 3^011 give us water enough to keep them up. But, as I sup¬ 
pose 3 ’ou know very well, the Blackstone is a bottled-up stream : six 
months we have a plent 3 " of water, and six months we are supplied 
by reservoirs. The water has got to be stored up, unless you buy all 
the property to keep the reservoirs full. 

Q. — If the ponds were full, they wouldn’t get lower unless you 
drew them down, would they? A. — Yes : I suppose they would. 

Q. — They would evaporate ? A. — Yes, sir : unless you have got 
a different law in regard to evaporation from what I have ever seen. 

Q. _ Wouldn’t it be possible to keep those ponds full if you didn’t 
draw them down through the summer? A. — Yes, it would, with a 
system of reservoirs above, and a plenty of water; but the people of 
the valley think as the Legislature, in their wisdom, saw fit to take 
away one of the sources of the water-supply of the Blackstone River, 


180 


from which they have alwaj-s drawn in the dry months, and put in the 
hands of Worcester, it is worse than before ; and now, of course, you 
use that water as you please, and 3'ou wouldn’t be very apt to draw 
that water entirety during the season ; and then we should have less 
water running down the river than now. 

Q. — I didn’t ask you any thing about the mills. A. — I didn’t 
say any thing about the mills. 

Q. — What I wanted to know was, not whether 3^011 could run the 
mills and keep the ponds full, but whether 3 r ou could keep the ponds 
full? A. —Yes, if 3 T ou had plenty of water back of it. 

Q. —Isn’t there water enough in the Blackstone River to keep it 
full, if 3 T ou didn’t use 3 r our mill? A. — No, sir: not if 3*011 didn’t 
have reservoirs back. If 3 t ou give the Blackstone River the amount 
of water you now get from freshets, the water would be comparatively 
pure. 

Q. — Do 3 T ou know how much the evaporation is on the pond ? 
A. — No, I don’t. 

Q. — About one-eighth of an inch a day, isn’t it? A. — As I said, 
I don’t know : I shouldn’t want to answer I do. 

Q. — You don’t think 3^011 would lose an eighth of an inch a day 
from the Blackstone River ? A. — I have seen the time when there 
was no water coming into the Blackstone River except what came 
from reservoirs. 

Mr. Flagg. And sewers. 

Witness. And sewerage, of course. 

Mr. Flagg. I have two letters from witnesses who could not be 
here, which I will read : — 


Millbury, March 12, 1882. 

G. A. Flagg, Esq. 

I am unable to be present at the sewage hearing, but you may read the fol¬ 
lowing: — 

This is to certify that I have been a resident of Millbury, living within 
twenty-five or thirty rods of the Blackstone River, for nearly two years past. 
During this time I have had more sickness than in all my life before. No 
member of my family, which consisted of six persons, has been exempted; and 
my youngest child, after a brief illness, died suddenly more than a year ago. 
From carefully studying the subject, I am convinced that the principal cause 
of all this has been the proximity of the Blackstone River, which, most evi¬ 
dently, pollutes the atmosphere near it, and from which, at times, the odor is 
very offensive. 


Millbury, Mass., March 1,1882. 


B. J. JOHNSTON, 

Pastor of M. E. Church. 


Mr. Flagg. I should sa3 r that the death of that child was from 
scarlet fever. 


181 


To G. A. Flagg, Esq. 

Dear Sir , — I am unable to be present at the hearing as you desire. 

About the first of August, 1881, I went down to see my lot in the cemetery 
which is near C. D. Morse’s pond. While there, my attention was attracted to 
the rapid filling up of the pond. On my w r ay home I had to pass near the sash 
and blind shop of Mr. C. D. Morse. He was standing out in the yard in front 
of his shop. I said to him I was much surprised to see how fast his pond w r as 
filling up; if it continued to fill up for three years to come as fast as it had for 
the last three years, there would not be much space left for the water to run. 
We were standing near the water on the east side of his shop: he asked me if I 
did not smell the water. I said, no, I had catarrh in my head so bad I could 
not smell any thing. He said the water smelt like rotten eggs. I said, if so, it 
was probably sulphuretted hydrogen gas. I had a few matches in my pocket. 
I split the end of a stick, and inserted a match, and ignited it, and applied it to 
the bubbles that came floating down on the surface of the water: they ignited 
at once. I could see the flash; did not hear the report, being rather deaf. Mr. 
Morse said he distinctly heard it. That satisfied me the odor complained of by 
Mr. Morse was sulphuretted hydrogen gas or hydrogen sulphide: both have 
the same putrid odor, but very different in their poisonous effects. 

Sulphuretted hydrogen is instantly fatal to animal life when pure, and even 
when diluted with fifteen or twenty times its balk of air has been, found so 
poisonous as to destroy life in a few minutes. One hot day last summer the 
odor from the river was so offensive my wife had to put down all the windows. 
My house stands about seventy rods from the river, — may be a few rods more. 

Respectfully, 

ELIJAH THOMSON, Millbury , Mass . 

Millbury, March 11, 1882. 

Mr. Flagg. As to Elijah Thomson, I have a slip from a news¬ 
paper here which will describe who he is. I will read but a sen¬ 
tence from it: — 

“ Mr. Elijah Thomson, an aged and respected citizen of Millbury, furnishes 
the following account of his invention of friction matches.” 

He is the inventor of friction matches, and is an old gentleman 
who has lived for a long time in Millbuiy. 

Mr. Goulding. Do you mean to say he is the original inventor? 

Mr. Flagg. Yes, sir. 

CHARLES G. MORSE. Recalled. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)— You were explaining the sprinklers when 
you left the stand yesterday. Have you any thing more to say to the 
Committee about them? A. —Perhaps I might state, in the first 
place, as to the size of the hole : it may be better to give the definite 
size, — one-twelfth of an inch. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —That is the diameter? A. —Yes, sir. 
I stated yesterday that the holes were probably about ten inches 
apart. I found, by measuring them, they are between five and six: 
they vary a little. 


182 


Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)—T hese sprinklers are in common use in 
manufactories? A — Yes, sir. I put this sprinkler in under the 
direction of the secretary of the Manufacturers’ Mutual Insurance 
Company. 

Q. — In other places they have been effective? A. — So far as I 
know, always. They were recommended very highly to me. 

Q. — You heard this letter that I read from Mr. Thomson? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. —Did you see what he describes in that? A. —I did. 

Q. —You saw the flash of the bubbles? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.)—H ow long did 3*011 sa} 7 this sprinkler 
had been in? A. —Perhaps seven or eight years. I couldn’t #state 
positively*. 

Q. — You have tried them frequent!} 7 in the mean time? A .— 
Never tried them inside the building, except in the basement. 

Q. — Ever have water turned into them? A. — Never turned it in, 
except in the case of the fire. I have tried them on the outside of 
the adjoining building. I think I called y*our attention to a little 
gable. I have also tried it in the basement, and it worked to perfec¬ 
tion. It protected the basement all the way, except the farther end, 
at the time of the fire. 

Q. (By* Mr. Flagg.) — I want to ask 3*011 as to the age of the 
dams, including all those from the mouth of the sewer to the Black- 
stone line. You have looked into that matter? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — What can 3*011 say 7 ? A. —The original Burling dam was 
built at the time the Blackstone canal was built. The exact date I 
couldn’t tell 3*011, — in the 30 ’s, I think. 

Q. — Next is 3’our dam? A. — Next is m3 7 dam. M3* dam, as 
near as I can ascertain, was built in 1827 . 

Q. — Next is the Atlanta dam? A. —That was built a hundred 
and fifteen } 7 ears ago, as near as I can ascertain. 

Q. — Millbury Cotton-Mills dam ? A. — That was part and parcel 
of that same privilege, as I understood. 

Q. — Cordis Mill dams? A. — About seventy years ago. 

Q. — Simpson’s dam. A. — Simpson’s dam soon after. 

Q. —Wilkinsonville dam was built by Asa Waters? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — About what time? A. — I looked that up; but, really, I 
think — 

Q. — Asa Waters died about 1834 , did he not? A. —As long 
ago as that, I am told : it was before I came to town. I think that 
is an older dam than the Cordis or Simpson’s dam. 

Q .—Saundersville dam has been testified to? A. —Yes, sir. I 
went no farther than the Wilkinsonville dam. 


188 


Q • —You pay taxes, I understand, on property in Worcester? A. 

— Yes, sir: and have, for the last ten years, paid about two hundred 

dollars a year. 

«/ 

Q • — What can you say as to the general opinion of the public in 
Millbury and adjoining towns? A. —As has been stated, we were 
appointed a committee a number of years ago; and we reported, per¬ 
haps, twice or three times to the town, and asked for more time. 
Perhaps three years ago an article appeared in the Millbury paper, 
in regard to the pollution of the Blackstone River, rather criticising 
the committee for not acting. The feeling there is verj T strong that 
something should be done. It is very injurious to health. We have 
had trouble from it in our own famity, and I have experienced trouble 
personalty; and among the laboring men it is not only a matter of 
talk, but it is spoken of on the street. It has been a subject of 
prayer at the church. It is often spoken of going to and from church, 
and in almost any gathering we are at. Last spring the matter was 
up. Of course we were incurring expense on the sewerage matter; 
and I think one man expressed the opinion of the town when he said 
not to limit the committee in the amount of money, but let them go 
to the extent of the valuation of the town if it was necessary. The 
committee have been very careful in spending money. We were 
asked last summer, by the State Board of Health, to bring forward 
some plan, and present our views in regard to doing away with the 
pollution of the river. We immediately, within ten days, I think 
within less than a week, contracted with Col. Waring to bring for¬ 
ward his plans. At the same time the city of Worcester, a rich city, 
was asked to do the same thing, and brought forward none. 

Q. — You have informed yourself as to the number of operatives 
in the mills at these dams we have spoken of? A. — I think, in the 
aggregate, there are some thirty-two hundred or thirty-three hundred. 

Q. — Formerly your pond was used by the Baptists for their cere¬ 
mony of baptism, was it not? A. — In May, 1868 , and July, there 
were twenty-four persons baptized. 

. Q .—It was customary to use that pond very often, but is not 
now? A. —Yes, sir : my pond above the dam had a beach for bath¬ 
ing. 

Q. — And very much ice formerly came from that pond? A. — 
Yes, sir. Two ice-houses were upon that pond. I think the first 
one was abandoned in 1870 or 1869 for family use, and for market 
use the following year. 


Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What did you have these pictures of 
the ruins of your factory made for? A. — The first I knew about 
them, I found the artist there taking them. 


184 


Q. — You didn’t have them taken, then, yourself? A. —I did 
not order them taken, but I bought some. 

Q. — Have j t ou not used this picture with 3 r our friends for the pur¬ 
pose of showing how effective this sprinkler was in saving your prop- 
ert} r ? A. —I never showed them outside the Committee, at my 
place, and here. 

Q. — Did you ever have any experience in the use of those sprin¬ 
klers, except on this occasion? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —When? A. —I stated that I tried it in my basement several 
times. 

Q. —You never had occasion to use them in the case of a fire ex¬ 
cept this time? A. — That is the only fire I ever had. 

Q. — Were 3’ou ever present at any fire before when there was an 
attempt to use them? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —Your gear broke the first thing? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —Didn’t you have to supply new gear? A. — I did after run¬ 
ning some time. 

Q .—At the time of the fire, I mean? A. — At the time of the 
fire it ran about an hour. I got control of the fire before my gear 
broke. The fire-engines were there, and had full control of the fire 
before m3’ gear broke. 

Q. —Did 3 T ou use 3 r our pump after 3 T ou supplied the gear? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long did 3 T ou run it after 3’ou got a new one on ? A. — 
Perhaps we run it half a day the next day. I was seven minutes 
putting the duplicate gear on. I done all I could to save my prop¬ 
erty. I had a duplicate gear, and I was just seven minutes putting 
it on b3 T the time of a watch. 

Adjourned to 10 o’clock a.m. 


FIFTH HEARING. 


Thursday, March 16, 1882. 

The hearing was resumed at 10 o’clock. 

Mr. Goulding. I want to call the attention of the Committee to 
the following State reports, and other documents, to which I shall 
refer in argument: — / 

Report of State Board of Health, 1876, pp. 96, 107, 122, 140, 73. 

Report of State Board of Health, Lunacj~, and Charity, 1881, pp. 
11, 24, 122, 123. 

Report of State Board of Health, 1874, pp. 70, 98, 99, 116, 117, 
130, 135. 

Report of State Board of Health, 1878, p. 66. 

Supplement to No. 16 National Board of Health Bulletin, Dec. 24, 
1881, p. 17. 

Rudolph Herring’s Report, p. 6 : “Disposal of Sewage.” 

Then I desire to refer, passim , to that report, so far as it relates 
to Berlin, London, Dantzic, Brighton, Croydon ; generally to that 
report, specially to those points. 

I shall cite, besides the cases cited bj- the other side, Merrijield v. 
Lombard , 13 Allen, 116, and Wheeler v. Worcester, 10 Allen, 591. 


TESTIMONY OF CHARLES F. ADAMS. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Where do you live? A. —Worcester. 

Q. —What is 3 r our business? A. — I am a teacher at the normal 
school. 

Q. — What departments do } t ou teach? A. —Natural philosophy 
and chemistry. 

Q. — How long have }'ou been there? A. — Seven } r ears. 

Q. — Have you compiled any statistics with reference to the death- 
rate from various causes in Millbury as compared with other places ? 
A. — I have. 

Q. — Have you a copy of your compilation? A. — I have. 

[Witness submitted the following paper.] 

STATISTICS OF MORTALITY IN MILLBURY, 1861 TO 1881. 

To His Honor E. B. Stoddard, Mayor of Worcester. 

It seems hardly worthy of this age of scientific investigation, that so grave a 
matter as the disposal of the sewage of a city should be so largely discussed upon 
a basis of assumption and guesswork. The question whether Worcester is 
poisoning a sister community is a question of fact, which ought not to be diffi¬ 
cult to answer by the recognized methods of investigation. A death-rate show¬ 
ing a regular increase for a series of years corresponding with the increased 


186 


amount of sewage, if otherwise unexplained, would indicate a serious matter, 
especially if accompanied by a higher percentage of deaths from those diseases 
more or less connected with filth. Assuming that the clamor for restrictive 
legislation grew out of a deep sense of injury, I was interested to make a little 
research in the official registration of deaths, hoping to measure to some extent 
the poisoning influence of sewage. The results are so at variance with much of 
the current talk as to be worth your attention. 

At the outset, if we ask whether Millbury is an unhealthy town, we have to 
choose a standard of comparison. Evidently the sanitary conditions of a valley 
manufacturing town differ as much from those of the hill-farming towns as 
from those of the cities, and in the state and county the higher death-rate of 
the centres may or may not be balanced by the greater healthfulness of the more 
sparsely populated sections. 

The location, industries, and population are factors which show themselves 
more or less in the death-rate, so that perhaps the fairest standard is the aver¬ 
age of other towns of similar size and situation. Choosing, then, all the towns 
between 3,000 and 7,000 population in the valleys of the Nashua, Miller’s River, 
the Chicopee, and the Quinnebaug, we shall include the towns of Clinton, 
Leominster, Winchendon, Gardner, Athol, Spencer, Warren, Palmer, Ware, and 
Southbridge, all manufacturing towns, and averaging, in 1875, a population 
of 4,677 against 4,529 in Millbury. These furnish conditions approximately 
similar. 

The following table will enable us to compare the death-rate of Millbury with 
that of the ten towns, and it will also be seen in Table IV. that for twenty years 
Millbury has been apparently growing healthful: — 


TABLE I. — Comparative Death Rate * in Different 

Localities. 



1871-75. 

1871-80. 

1876-80. 

1880. 

Massachusetts 

21.05 

20.02 

18.98 

19.80 

Worcester County 

19.17 

18.23 

17.29 

18.92 

Worcester .... 

23 90 

21.58 

19.27 

20.89 

Ten Towns .... 

18.79 

18.22 

17.65 

19.71 

Millbury .... 
Millbury in 1881, 14.76. 

20 57 

19.91 

19.24 

18.77 


* Rate per 1,000, based upon average population. 


If we continue our inquiries further, and ask whether Millbury has an undue 
amount of those diseases which are more or less associated with poisoned air 
and water, it still further appears that Millbury compares favorably with the 
other towns, and that on the whole such diseases seem to be growing less, as is 
shown by Tables II., III., and IV. 

It will be observed that the figures for the filth diseases fluctuate through a 
wide range, though generally diminishing. The infantile death-rate also 
appears to be decreasing, and the school attendance increasing. Thus the 
statistics, examined from many points of view, seem to show little ground for 
legislation or experiment. 

Hoping that the enclosed tables may be of interest, I remain 

Respectfully yours, 

CHARLES F. ADAMS. 

Worcester, March 4,1882. 
















TABLE II. — The Comparative Death-Rate * from Filth Diseases in Different Localities. 


187 


1881. 

Total. 

NCOCOfN'H 
<01 rf CO i—i © 

^ Th CO ^ ^ 

-H- 

CO 

CO 00 

CO GO 

r—i >-H 

1876-1880. 

Average. 

C5 t-4 >ft SO 

a i 

Th CO tJH co 

1871-1880. 

Average. 

t—l lO O CD 

00 CO to CD l© 

tJH lO TJH 

1871-1875. 

Average. 

COOSCDOn-l 
r—< t'* lO CO pH 

O Tji CO ^ LO 


Massachusetts . 

Worcester County . 
Worcester 

Ten Towns 

Millbury 


U1 

0 

W 

0$ 

0 

in 


A 

+j 


Eh 


+j 

a* 

Qh 

0 

l/l 

0 

+j 

a 

o 

lH 


* 

0 

+J 

os 

ft 


as 

0 

P 

0 

> 

• H 

+j 

aS 

as 

P. 

a 

o 

O 

0 

P 


IH 

M 

M 

w 

p 

n 

< 



‘qSnoo ilA\ 

‘•U9H -dg -J90 

r— ocsio i—< 

CO rfrl CD lO <M 

’ +4 


•um^uBjui 

'eaaioqo 

05 CO (M r- or 

HHOOO^ 

y—i t—H 

H— H— -H- 

1881. 

•qaoi\[ 'e.iaioqo 
‘'Baoqjj'BiQ 
‘^J9^U9SA(X 

CD lO ^ <M © 

iOOn(MO 
• • • • 

H-1— ++ 

•pioqdix 

05 O r-1 CO Ol 
rfl CO CO 

-J—-t— ++ 


•dnojo pun 
■euginiidja 

TtiHQONO 

CO o r-r ^ 

r-H t—H r-H 

H-1— ++ 


•■buh'BP'BOS 

OJ rH 05 00 © 

CO CO t— CO 05 
• • • • 

H-!— -pH 


•J9IVT ‘-disXjg 
•qgnoo -qA\. 
‘•U9]\[ -ds 

H 05 CO 1C CD 
tH CO pH CO <M 


•ranjuujuj 

Bjaioqo 

CO O CO CO CD 

O 05 <01 05 00 

rH 1 

• 

o 

X 

X 

fH 

qjojv 'Baaioqo 
‘vaoq.i.rad 
‘i.I91U9SA(X 

IO OJ X N »« 
iO r)i © X CO 

© 

?' 

X 

H 

•pioqd^x 

©W05r-iCq 

tH its tH CO »0 


•dnojo puu 
uuaqiqdiQ 

O CO 00 O LO 
© Ol O N 05 

r—4 i—1 pH t-H 


•'CUIIBP'BOS 

i—' tH O 05 C5 
tH rH CO tH ®5 
• • • • • 


■}9]\[ ‘•dTSySaa 
•qSnoo •qA\ 

‘ U9H -ds'aao 

00 CM CO CO © 
lO ION ^ ^ 


unuuupii 

VJ9[OqQ 

O 05 CO tH 

CO CO CM rH cd 

Hr-lOitHpi 

o 

r* 

X 

H 

•qjoi\TT!.i9ioqo 

‘'BaoqjjTJiQ 

‘iJ9JU9sici 

O 05 lO © 05 

CO rH lO lO «^l 

rH 

r* 

GC 

H 

•ptoqd^x 

CO <M 00 lO L- 

co co 05 1—( 

T-H 


dnojQ puu 
'BU9qjqdi(X 

10 05I0W1- 
CD lO © LO CD 
• • • • • 

rH 


'■BUU’BIJ'BOg 

t- CO DJ CO CD 

CO C5 CM 05 

rH 


Massachusetts 

Worcester County . 
Worcester 

Ten Towns 

Millbury 


* Deaths per 1,000, average population. The average of 1871-75 and of 1876-80 is taken for 1871-81. f 1880. J Nine towns, the record of Palmer not received. 












































































TABLE IV. —Deaths in Millbury, 1861-1871-1881. Population, 3,296-4,397-4,741. 

Increase in Population, 1861-71, S3 per cent.; 1871-81, 44 per cent. 


i 


188 





























































































189 


Q . — From what sources were those statistics compiled? A. — 
From the reports of registration for the State for the successive years, 
and also from the original returns in the document-room. 

Q. — When did you make this compilation ? A. — Since the first 
of March. 

Q. — I will not stop to read this paper, but I will ask you what 
the compilation undertakes, in the first instance? A. — It under¬ 
takes to compare the mortality of Millbury with that of ten towns 
similarly situated and having similar industries; and also with the 
cit}^ of Worcester, the county of Worcester, and the whole State. It 
also attempts to compare the mortality of Millbury in the various 
years, that is, from 1860 up to 1880, so that a person may see at a 
glance how it compares ; and it also attempts to compare the mor¬ 
tality from the several diseases that are commonly regarded as filth 
diseases; that is, the filth diseases from 1870 to ’75 and ’80 are 
compared with those of 1860 to 1865, and so on. 

Q. — Now I will ask about the tables. Table I. is on the fourth, 
or last, page. “ Comparative death-rate in different localities.” 
What is that rate, — the rate per thousand? A .—Yes, — rate per 
thousand of the average population in the periods; that is, for 
1871 to ’75, the average of the census of the year 1870 and the 
census of 1875 is taken. 

Q .—And }’OU take how many periods there for comparison? A. 
— Three periods and two years, making five. 

Q. — In the last year, you do not give the other towns in Worces¬ 
ter, Worcester County, and Massachusetts, do you? A. — I did 
not have time to get the data, and the data from the State are not in. 
Some of the towns in the county have not yet been returned. 

Q. — Do you think of any thing in that table that needs explana¬ 
tion beyond what you have given? A. — I think not: it is intended 
to be plain. 

Q. — The towns that you have chosen are given at the bottom 
of the first page, I believe,—the towns of Clinton, Leominster, 
Winchendon, Gardner, Athol, Spencer, Warren, Palmer, Ware, and 
Southbridge. I will now turn to the second table, which is on the 
third page, — “Comparative death-rate from filth diseases in dif¬ 
ferent localities.” You take the same localities, do you? A.— 
Yes. 

Q. — And the same periods ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —Now, what do you undertake to do in that table? A. —To 
compare the rate of mortality in those different localities and in 
those different years. 

Q, — And upon the same basis of deaths per one thousand of 
average population? A. — Of average population : yes, sir. 


190 


Q. —Now, is there an} 7 further explanation needed of that table, 
that you think of? A. — Nothing, except that all the filth diseases 
that are included in this are named in the following table, Table 
III., which, I believe, contains more than are sometimes given. 

Q. — Now, state what Table III. undertakes to show. A. — It 
undertakes to show the rate of mortality, and the comparative rate of 
mortality, from each of those separate diseases; that is, so that a 
person can compare the death-rate of Millbury, of typhoid, with that 
of the ten towns, with that of the count}’', and with that of the State, 
for the successive periods, or can compare the death-rate from any 
of these diseases from one period to another. 

Q. — Take, for instance, the first column. Opposite the word 
“Massachusetts” I find the decimal .87 under the column “Scar¬ 
latina.” What does that mean? A. — It means, that out of every 
thousand average population, between 1871 and 1875, the average 
death-rate per year was 0.87 ; or, if you make it for every 100,000 
people in the State, 87 people died a year, on the average, during 
that period of five years. 

Q. —That is, the average, during that year, of deaths from scar¬ 
latina, was .87 of one? A. — Per thousand average population: yes, 
sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —That is, if the population was one thou¬ 
sand, eighty-seven died? A. — No, sir: less than one died. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Now, Table IV. is a little more elab¬ 
orate. There are some things which I may require you to explain. 
What does that table undertake to show? A. —It undertakes to 
show, first, the number of deaths per year from each of the several 
causes known as filth diseases ; to show the total amounts for the suc¬ 
cessive years, and for the periods; and to show the average death- 
rate, so that they may be easily compared; and the death-rate from 
the diseases during different periods, so that you may compare the 
last period with the first, or with the middle, or any other, as you 
may determine. 

Q. —Just go into a little detail, so as to be sure we understand 
it. I find here several columns headed 1861’-62-’63, up to 1865 ; 
then a division by a heavier line ; and then, between that heavy ver¬ 
tical line and another which follows, “ 1861 to 1870.” Does that 
mean a summary of the whole ten years? A. —What is under that 
means the average for that period of ten years. These tables, of 
course, are to be considered with reference to the population. 

Q. — That you had provided for? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — “Scarlatina,” for instance. In that column I find the 
figure “1.” What does that mean? A. — It means that there 
was, on the average, one death per year, for each year, from that 


191 


disease, from 1861 to 1870 inclusive, in Millbury. All this table 
relates to Millbury. 

Q • — Then, the column at the head of which is “ 1871 to 1880” 
is the same thing with reference to that period, isn’t it? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q • — Now, opposite the line “ Total filth diseases,” I find, under 
the heading “1861,” “8.” What does that mean? A .—That 
means that in the whole town there were eight deaths during that 
year from these several causes. 

Q . — And the same as to the other years following? A. — Yes, 

sir. 

Q. —Now, the figures “89,” in heavier type, below “ 1863,” 
mean what? A. — They mean that during those five years, from 
1861 to 1865, there were 89 deaths. It is really the sum of these 
totals just added. It is the sum of 8, 19, 18, 24, and 20; showing 
that, during those five } T ears, in the whole town, there were 89 deaths 
from these causes. I wanted to place it in that five } r ears, and so 
put it in the middle of the five years. The printer wanted to run 
the line right down there. 

Q. —Now, the figures “ 161,” in the same kind of type, under 
the “1861 to 1870” column, mean what? A. — That, in the ten 
3 r ears from 1861 to 1870, there were 161 deaths from those several 
causes. It is really adding up the 8, 19, 18, 24, and 20 ; and then 
skipping over to the 14, 13, 9, 19, and 17. 

Q. —Now, the “72” is what? A .—For the five years, the 
total deaths from 1866 to 1870, the same as the “ 89 ” in the other 
case. 

Q. — Now, is the “ 114,” in the same line, the sum total for the 
five years from 1871 to 1875 inclusive? A. — It is. 

Q. — And the “ 205 ” is the total from 1871 to 1880 inclusive? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —And the “ 91 ” for the last five years, from 1876 to 1880? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Now, I find this abbreviation ‘‘ met. : ’ ’ that means ; ‘ metria ’ ’ f 
A. — Metria: yes, sir. 

Q. —Next I find here “ per cent filth diseases above or below av¬ 
erage ten years,” and, under the separate columns, some figures with 
plus and minus marks before them. Explain what that signifies. A. 

_The first one, “ —.56,” under “’61,” means that during the 

year 1861 there was fifty-six per cent less of deaths from these causes 
than there were on the average of those ten years of the whole num¬ 
ber of deaths under the death-rate. Now, the whole number of 
deaths in the ten years is shown just above, “ 161,” in bold type; 
that is, an average for the ten years of sixteen deaths per year. 


192 


Now, this first year there were only eight; so there was really fifty- 
six per cent less than the average for the ten years. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —May I ask you, if you add all the pluses 
together and subtract the minuses, would not that leave just one per 
cent? Would not that be what it would amount to? A. — No: it 
would be just nothing, would it not? 

Dr. Wilson. No, sir : it would be just one per cent. 

Witness. Adding the plus above the average, and subtracting 
the minus below the average, I should think would leave just zero. 

Q. — Now, below that line we find “Average death-rate filth 
diseases;” then follow these several diseases; and under the mid¬ 
dle columns of the separate five years, and the middle columns of the 
separate ten years, we find rows of figures which seem to be added, in 
bolder type? A. —They are added up. 

Q. — Now explain that. A. — The upper part of the table that 
we have been speaking about refers to the whole number of deaths in 
the town, and this part refers to the rate per thousand, and the aver¬ 
age rate per thousand per year ; so that, under the first year, “.23 ” 
means that during that five years the average rate per thousand 
every }’ear of deaths from scarlatina was .23 of one. Or, putting 
it the other way, out of one hundred thousand people in the town, 
there were, on the average, twenty-three deaths per year, in that* 
period of five years, from scarlatina. 

Q. —You mean, if there had been one hundred thousand inhabit¬ 
ants there? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Now, these figures below, opposite the line “Average per 
1,000 of average population,” the line of figures through the table, 
beginning with “ 5.03,” in similar type, means what, sir? A. — 
Those are the sums of these separate death-rates that we have been 
speaking of: the sum of .23, 1.75, and so on. That is, the “ 5.03,” 
for the five years from 1861 to 1865, shows that, on the average, for 
every thousand people in the town, there were five deaths from all 
these diseases put together. 

Q. —Then the next line, “ Deaths from all causes,” that needs no 
explanation, I suppose? A. — That is the entire number of deaths, 
and not any relative number. 

Q. — Next, “ Per 1,000 from all causes ” ? That is simple, I take 
it. Then there is, “Average per 1,000 from all causes,” in heavier 
type. A. — That is derived from the line above, grouped in five- 
year periods and in ten-year periods, and the average of the whole 
taken. 

Q. — The next line I see here is, “Average school attendance 
between five and fifteen,” and these columns begin later, in 1871. 
What is the explanation of that? A. — The returns previously to 


193 


1871 were divided into summer and winter attendance, and I did not 
take the time to add them up, and balance them, to fill in from 1860 
to 1870. The number “59,” under “1871,” means, that, if there 
were in the town one hundred pupils between five and fifteen, there 
were, on an average, all through the school year, fifty-nine of them 
present at school every day. 

Q '—The “ 61 ” in the next column but one is the average of 
those five years? A. —Yes, sir: on the same basis. 

Q. — The “ 63 ” between the heavy lines is the average of the ten 
years? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — “66” is the average of the five }’ears between 1876 and 
1880 inclusive? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — The next line gives the average number belonging to the 
school? A. — The whole number whose names are enrolled on the 
registers. Some of the pupils are entirely out of school, but of those 
whose names are enrolled on the registers, out of every hundred that 
are enrolled, eighty-eight of them were there, on the average, every 
day. 

Q. (tty Mr. Chamberlain.) — What do you mean by “ pupils en¬ 
tirely out of school”? A. — I mean, a bo}~ of ten years may be in 
a factory, and, if he is, he is not considered in this account; but only 
those who have been at school a week or two, or something of that 

kind. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Then, the next is “Average deaths 
under five to births .” Does that need an}' explanation? If so, 
please to state exactly what it means. A. — That first one, “.26,” 
means that for every hundred children born for the first five years, on 
the average, there were twenty-six died before reaching the age of 
five. 

Q. — I see that is a decimal. Does that mean that, on the aver¬ 
age, twent} r -six out of every hundred children that are born die before 
they are five years old? A. — If there are a hundred births in the 
town in a year, the table shows that, deducting all the children living- 
up to the age of five years, and including all the infantile diseases, 
the death-rate would be twenty-six. 

Q. — Did you compare that with the other places? A. — I did 
not figure it out with other places. The rule is, that about a quarter 
part of the population of the State die before five years of age. 

Q. — Now, I see some statements below this table, “ Increase in 
school attendance exceeded by only three towns in the State.” 
That means the increase from what time to what time? A. — Under 
the year 1877, “ *.42 ” means .42 per cent of one. .66 in ’78 ; .74 
in ’79 ; .84 in ’80, — that that rate of increase was only exceeded by 
three towns in the State. 


I 


194 


Q. —Then I see the next statement in the table is “based upon 
preceding census.” What does that mean? A. —Among the list, 
about the fourth or fifth line from the bottom, you see “ Deaths from 
all causes;” and then, under that, “Deaths per 1,000 from all 
causes,” and that is copied directly from the reports of registration. 
The first one 3^011 see is 17.6 for 1861. It is the last number under 
1861. That is based, of course, on the census of 1860. Now, 21.12 
is based on the same census, and the 20.0 is based on the census of 
1860 until 3’ou get down to 1866 ; then the rate is based on the cen¬ 
sus of 1865. 

Q. — Do 3'ou mean 1860 or 1870? A. —The rate under 1866 is 
based on the census of 1865. We have five-3’ear censuses. 

Q. — “ School attendance in 1881 exceeded only by four towns in 
the county.” Did 3 r ou find that to be so? A. —That is printed 
in the last report of the State Board of Education. All the towns in 
the county are arranged in line, and that appears from those statis¬ 
tics. With reference to the use of Table III., on the third page, if 
you follow down the line in the first part of it, “ 1871 to ’75,” until 
3mu get to Millbury, you find “.76;” that is, of course, to every 
thousand of population, on the average ; that is scarlatina. You can 
compare it with the ten towns which had a higher rate ;. with Worces¬ 
ter, which had a still higher rate ; and with Worcester Count3 T , a 
higher rate still; and with Massachusetts. In the same wa3 r 3011 can 
follow this along. You find diphtheria higher in Millbuiy than in the 
ten towns ; lower than Worcester, higher than Worcester County, 
and so on. Then 3’ou can skip along until you come to “ 1876 to 
’80.” The number “ .99,” under scarlatina, shows that Millbuiy 
had. a higher rate than the ten towns, or Worcester, or Worcester 
Count3 r ; but of diphtheria “.95,” which was much lower. Of t3~- 
phoid, it was below the average of the county, and the average of 
the ten towns; of dysenteiy, it was much below; cholera infantum, 
it was below, and so on. In 1881 you get a large increase in scar¬ 
latina as compared with the rest of the towns; no fatal cases of 
diphtheria and croup ; none of dysenteiy, and so on. 

Q. — I will ask you as a statistician what is the general result of 
this tabulation in respect to the comparative death-rate of Millbuiy 
relative to these towns, the county, and the State, with which you 
have compared it? A. —I think it appears that the death-rate of 
Millbury is neither high nor low ; of the' two, I should not know ; it 
runs along, as far as I can sec, about even. It appears in Table IV., 
I think, very near the lower part of it. There you see the average 
per thousand, and then you get, next to the last figure in 1863, 
“21.7 ;” that is the rate for that five years ; and then, in the first ten 
years, 20.4; and then, if you look along to ’80, it is 20.2; that is, 


195 


j 


for the last ten 3 ’ears, it was less than for the first ten. And still 
further, in 1876 to 1880, it is 19.6. In 1880 it is 18.8, and in 1881, 
14.8. I think it appears that there is a diminishing death-rate. 

Q •—Now, in these figures showing the average death-rate, have 
you provided for the increase of population? A .—The lower num¬ 
bers, “ 17.6,” “ 21.2,” “20,” etc., which are next above the “ 21.7,” 
under 1863, are relative to the population ; but the numbers in heavier 
type, about a third of the way from the top of the table, — the “89,” 
“ 161,” “ 72,” “ 114,” “ 205,” and “ 91,” — are the absolute num¬ 
bers of deaths from an increasing population all the time. 


Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Mr. Adams, do you undertake to give an 
opinion as to an 3 r thing except the accuracy of your computations? 
A. — The drift of the computation is plain. As to the medical 
matters, that is out of my province, of course. 

Q. —Well, have you made a study of vital statistics? A. — I 
have, as a teacher of ph}’siology, read carefully all the reports of the 
State Board of Health, and refer to them in m} r classes, which con¬ 
tain a considerable amount of carefully tabulated statistical matter. 

Q. — Do 3 T ou think that, when 3*011 have prepared tables to show 
the comparative death-rates of Millbury, of the State, of the county, 
and of certain towns, that you have exhibited all the facts which are 
material to determine whether or not Millbury has been growing 
healtly or unhealthy? A. — I think that that, to me, is the leading 
fact, the most available fact, the prime fact. 

Q. —Did you ever read an 3 T book on vital statistics? A. —No, 
sir. 

Q. — Let me call 3 T our attention to a statement in an authority on 
vital statistics, — Dr. Carpenter of London, — in which he says, 
“ The number of deaths in a given district bear no constant ratio to 
its healthiness or unhealthiness. It does not necessarily follow that 
the conclusions respecting the sanitary conditions of a town or country 
are correct, because the ratio of mortality is low.” A. —In Dr. 
Stewart’s book he states that it does bear a ratio, that the two are 
commensurate. I have read that. 

Q. — Then you have proceeded upon the theoiy, have you, that 
the statistics of death are the most important statistics in determining 
the health of a community? A. — 1 proceeded upon the theory that 
those would throw important light upon the subject under discussion. 
It is a matter that I have nothing to do with, you understand. 

Q. — No : I simply wished to ascertain to what extent you desired 
the Committee to accept the conclusions to which you come as author¬ 
ity here. Are you aware of the fact that the birth-rate is an impor- 


196 


tant factor in determining the condition of the health of a town? A. 
— Yes, sir; and for that reason I put in ten similar towns in which 
the birth-rate is somewhat commensurate with that of Millbury. 

Q. — Have you made any tables which show the birth-rate of Mill¬ 
bury as compared with other places? A. — I have not. This matter 
has been taken up within a fortnight, and there has been what work I 
could do in what is here. 

Q. —Your tables, if I understand them and the conclusions to which 
you come in this communication, tend to prove, if they prove any 
thing, that the health of Millbury has been improved in consequence 
of the sewage of Worcester being turned into the river? A. — No, 
sir, nothing of the sort. 

Q. —You state in your report, if I understand you, that “Mill¬ 
bury compares favorably with the other towns ; and that, on the 
whole, such diseases [that is, filth diseases] seem to be growing 
less.” A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — And you then go on and say that “for twenty years Mill¬ 
bury has been apparently growing healthful.” Now, you certainly 
do draw inferences from these tables, and undertake to present them 
to the Committee. A. — I say nothing about sewage. I say that 
the facts are, so far as I can ascertain them, that Millbury shows a 
lower death-rate to-day than for twenty years previously. 

Q. — You say you “say nothing about sewage;” but you begin 
your communication by saying, “ It seems hardly worth) 7 of this age 
of scientific investigation, that so grave a matter as the disposal of 
the sewage of a city should be so largely discussed upon a basis of 
assumption and guesswork.” And you then go on and give statistics 
which you think are important, and at the conclusion of those statis¬ 
tics you draw the inference that the health of Millbury has been im¬ 
proving. Now, I ask you whether you did not intend to convey 
by that communication the idea that the disposal of the sewage of 
Worcester had been so judiciously managed that it had tended to im¬ 
prove the health of the town of Millbury ? What is the connection in 
your mind between the disposal of the sewage of Worcester and the 
conclusion to which you come here? A. — I am unable to find in the 
general death-rate, or in the death-rate from those separate filth dis¬ 
eases, which appear to be diminishing, substantial ground for think¬ 
ing that the sewage of Worcester is not so abundantly diluted and so 
thoroughly oxidized, burned up, that it produces a higher death- 
rate : that is the point. I have nothing to say beyond that. 

Q . —Please understand, Mr. Adams, that I am not seeking in any 
way to disparage the accuracy of your tables. I have no doubt they 
were figured honestly, and I presume accurately : it is simply whether, 
when you go beyond your tables, and undertake to draw inferences 


197 


from them, you desire the Committee to understand that your opinion 
upon this subject is of any particular value as due to any special 
investigation of such matters. A. — I think it is entitled to some 
little consideration, but not that of an expert or a physician at all. 

Q . — Don’t 3'ou think that you are in error in assuming that the 
statistics that 30U have put into 3’our tables are sufficient data from 
which to draw the inference that 3*011 do, — u that for twenty years 
Millbuiy has been apparently growing healthful”? A. — 1 think I 
tried to state, that, in so far as the tables contribute any thing, just 
so far Millbury appears to be growing healthful. Beyond that I have 
no data : I don’t know any thing about it. 

Q . —Pardon me, Mr. Adams : I think that 3 r our language in this 
communication is much broader than that. I use 3’our exact expres¬ 
sion : 46 The following table will enable us to compare the death-rate 
of Millbuiy with that of the ten towns, and it will also be seen in 
Table IV". that for twent3 T 3’ears Millbuiy has been apparently growing 
healthful.” I understand that to be the expression of 3 r onr opinion, 
that, as shown in Table IV., the town has been apparently growing 
healthful during that time. A. — So far as appears in Table IV., it 
certainly has. 

Q. — Have 3'ou an3* opinion as to the causes which have led Mill- 
buiy to improve in health during the twenty 3*ears? A. — I think 
that very likely the science of medicine is understood better to-day 
than it was twent3 T 3 T ears ago, which may T have been a contributing 
cause. 

Q. — But I understand the tables to show that Millbury has 
improved more than other towns during that time in health. Do 
you mean that the physicians of Millbury are shown by these statis¬ 
tics to have advanced beyond the average physicians of the State? 
A. — I think not; I don’t know that that is a necessary inference 
from it. 

Q. —Well, is that 3'our opinion? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — Then I go back again to the question as to what you attrib¬ 
ute the improved condition of Millbury to? A. —Millbury is com¬ 
pared with itself for twenty years; and, compared with itself, it 
seems to me that may be one of the contributing causes. I think, 
also, there filters down from competent people a better knowledge of 
the conditions of health than was common in the community twenty 
years ago, and I think that is one reason. 

Q. — Do you think that any more of it has filtered down into Mill¬ 
bury than into any other place? A. — No. 

Q. — Perhaps I don’t understand your tables ; but I suppose that 
they were intended to show, or that you claim that it is a fair infer¬ 
ence from them, that Millbury has advanced in health in a larger 
ratio than other places. Isn’t that your conclusion? 


Mr. Goulding. There is no statement of any such claim. 

Q. — Perhaps I do not understand your statement. You say here, 
“ For twenty years Millbury has been apparently growing healthful.” 
Do you mean that Millbury lias been growing more healthful than 
other places have been, or that there has been a general advance in 
health in the last twenty years? A .—I think that Millbuiy has 
been growing in health for the last twenty years, and it also appears 
in another table that ten towns have not grown healthful as fast as 
Millbury. 

Q — I thought I stated correctly that you intended to draw the 
inference that Millbury has grown healthful with more marked rapidity 
than other towns. A. — It appears that, compared with those ten 
manufacturing towns, the improvement is on the side of Millbuiy. 

Q. — Now I ask if you have an}’ opinion as to what that improve¬ 
ment on the side of Millbury is to be attributed to? A. —I think it 
is due, perhaps, as I said before, to a better and more general knowl¬ 
edge of hygienic laws, for one thing. 

Q. —I ask you to confine yourself to Millbury, as distinguished 
from these other towns. You have compared Millbury with ten other 
towns, and you say there has been a marked improvement in health 
in Millbury over the other towns. Have you any opinion as to what 
that marked improvement in Millbuiy is due to? A. — I don’t know 
why it should turn out that way. 

Q. — Do you think it possible that the sewerage of Worcester can 
have tended to improve the health of Millbury? A. — It don’t seem 
likely. 

Mr. Goulding. It is hardly worth while to waste time on such a 
question as that. We don’t claim any such thing. 

The Chairman. I think the Committee understand that. 

Q. —Upon what principle did you make your selection of the ten 
towns? A .—It appears on the first table. It seemed to me that 
to compare Millbury with the whole State was not fair. To compare 
it with the whole county, made up of cities and farming towns, I 
thought would not be fair; but if a large number of manufacturing 
towns, of about the same size, in river valleys, could be picked out, 
there would be a fair standard of comparison. So I looked over the 
map, and found the river valleys of the State, and picked out towns 
of similar size, between three thousand and seven thousand popu¬ 
lation, and made an average population practically about the same 
as that of Millbury. 

Q■ —Did you pick out rivers where there had been any complaint 
of pollution? A .—I picked out the rivers by the map, without the 
slightest reference to the complaints of pollution. 

Q. — Did you know, in point of fact, whether any of those rivers 
were polluted ? A. — I did not. 


199 


Q- —You did not investigate it? A. —No, sir. 

Q- —You are not aware of the fact that one of the rivers which 
you took is one of those condemned by the Board of Health as a 
polluted stream ? A. — I have since read that it was. 

Q • —Which was that? A. — Miller’s River, I think. I know 
there was a report with reference to that. 

Q- — Isn’t there another one of the rivers that has been condemned 
by the State Board of Health,—the Nashua? A. —Not as far as 
I now remember. 

Q •—The report of this 3’ear, Mr. Adams, on p. lxv, states that 
complaints have been made for some 3’ears of the condition of the 
Nashua River below Fitchburg. A. — That report has not come to 
m} 7 hands. 

Q. —I understood 3’ou to say that, in selecting the towns, } T ou did 
not undertake to ascertain what the condition of the rivers was upon 
w y hich the towns were situated? A. — No: I simply intended to 
take all the rivers of the State that had small towns on them. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —In Table III., under the year 1881, in the 
columns relating to Millbuiy, I find a column headed “ Dysentery, 
diarrhoea, cholera morbus.” That means, I suppose, that there were 
no deaths in Millbury in 1881, from any of those causes? A. — 
Yes, sir; and the same is true in regard to diphtheria and croup. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ORAMEL MARTIN. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You are a practising physician in 
Worcester? A. —lam. 

Q. — How long have you been a practising physician? A .— 
About fifty 3’ears. 

Q. —How long have you been in Worcester? A. —Thirty-two 
3 r ears. 

Q. — I want to ask you, doctor, what is your opinion with regard 
to the question whether the death-rate of a town or county is any 
criterion of the health-rate? A. —I supposed that our effort to get 
the Commonwealth to give us the death-rate was to help us in some 
way to improve the general health, and therefore reduce the amount of 
death that would otherwise occur; that every thing that lessens the 
amount of health diminishes the chances of human life. 

Q .— That answers the question, perhaps, indirectly; but what is 
3’our opinion upon that question, as to whether the death-rate is a 
criterion, to an3’ extent, and to what extent, ot the health-rate of a 
community? A. — I believe it is admitted by the profession, as a 
rule, that the death-rate shows comparatively the amount of sickness 
in the community ; that the death-rate is in proportion, as a rule. 
There are exceptions to the rule. 


200 


Q .—Where does your practice extend, doctor? A. — Well, it 
extends about Worcester, and in the adjoining towns, in consulta¬ 
tion. 

Q. —Have j’ou been called in consultation to Millbury at all? A. 
— Not much in late years : no, sir. 

Q .—You, as a physician, have a knowledge of the general health 
of the community in the towns adjoining Worcester? A. — From 
general reports : } T es, sir. 

Q. —You belong to the Medical Society, I presume. A. — I do. 

Q. — I want to know if you have information of an} T epidemic or 
diseases in Millbury, or on the Blackstone River in Worcester, 
attributable to the river or the sewage ? A. — I have not known of 
any peculiarly attributable to the river. 

Q. — I will ask you whether throat-diseases have prevailed to any 
extent within the past few years in your practice? A. —Yes, sir: 
there has been a good deal of throat-disease for the last year or two 
in my practice. 

Q. — Ascribable to the river, or an}^ river, or in any marked way 
confined to localities near rivers? A. — Those cases that I have 
seen were the result usually of changes of atmosphere or changes of 
weather. 

Q. — I want to ask you a question in regard to typhoid fever: 
whether a change of climate by coming into a new country is likely 
to produce it in the patient? A. —When I first came into Worces¬ 
ter County, I came into a farming town that employed a large number 
of workmen through the summer that came down from Vermont. 
Those people that came down from the mountainous regions of Ver¬ 
mont, a great number of them, had typhoid fever in the course of the 
summer, a great deal more than the regular inhabitants there had it. 

Q. — Do you mean to say that is the rule ? A. — That was the 
rule there. The people that come from healthy neighborhoods where 
there has not been typhoid fever are veiy apt to have it. It is a rule, 
1 suppose, that people do not have typhoid fever twice. 

Q. — With regard to the contagiousness of typhoid fever, what do 
you say about that? A. —Well, the profession differ about it. I 
think that the profession now are settling into the belief that it is 
contagious or infectious. I have some doubts about it mvself. 

Q. —To what do }’ou ascribe the fact, that, when one person takes 
it in a house, several are apt to, similar conditions or causes existing? 
A. — The theory at the present day is, that it is the result of the 
ejections that are passed from diseased surfaces, some particles of 
which are inhaled. The real fact is, we do not know much about it. 

Q. —Do you know anything about the increased prevalence of 
intermittent or malarial fever in New England recently? A. —Yes, 


201 


sir: I know considerable about that. I know that in Worcester 
County, until within the last few years, I never had seen a case of 
intermittent fever that had not been brought in from abroad, from 
malarial neighborhoods ; but it is not only 7 a fact in regard to Worces¬ 
ter, but it is a fact that our medical literature takes notice of, that 
there has been a recurrence of malarial fever through Massachusetts, 
especially in the southern portion of it. In Springfield there has been 
a great deal more than usual, and I have been informed by medical 
men in the county 7 that there has been more generally 7 . We used to 
have it brought from abroad, and it did not occur in people who hadn’t 
been away 7 from home. We have it now among people who have not 
been away 7 from home either West or South. 

Q. — Whether diphtheria and diphtheretic sore throats are confined 
in your practice to river-courses, or whether you find them on hills 
and everywhere? A. — Diphtheria appears strangely 7 everywhere and 
anywhere. It has appeared on the highest hills we have, and in the 
healthiest neighborhoods, without any apparent cause. It is not 
established at all what diphtheria is, in my mind, and I do not think 
it is generally with the profession. The term “diphtheretic sore 
throat ” is a term we all use to satisfy people who want to call every 
thing “diphtheria.” Real diphtheria is a rare disease, very rare 
indeed ; but such a person has a little ulceration of the throat, and 
we call it “diphtheretic:” that means “like.” Most of what we 
call “ diphtheretic sore throat ” is the result of a common cold. The 
first case of real diphtheria that I ever saw in my 7 life was on a place 
called Ragged Hill, in West Brookfield. It was terrible. It was a 
high place, where you would suppose that a person couldn’t help but 
be healthy 7 . Children died off there in great numbers. That was a 
great many years ago*. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.)— What are the principal diseases that are 
occasioned by 7 sewage or cesspool effluvia? A. — I don’t know any 
disease that is absolutely caused by cesspools. The negro that 
cleaned out most of the cesspools in Worcester is between eighty 7 and 
ninety 7 y 7 ears old, I believe, and he has had rheumatism. 

Q .—Do y r ou think that is a fair answer to my question, doctor? 
A. —Yes, I think it is. 

Q. —Don’t you agree with other physicians in considering that 
sewage and cesspool effluvia are very efficient causes of disease? 
A. — I think bad smells, effluvia, injure the general health, and a 
person whose health is below the ordinary grade is more likely to 
have disease ; but I really cannot say that I know any disease abso¬ 
lutely, any individual disease, that was the result of sewage. 


202 


Q. — You mean to sa}' that the tendency of the presence of sew¬ 
age or cesspool effluvia in the atmosphere is not to cause disease? 
A. — No, I don’t say that. 

Q. — Is it, or not, the tendency of sewage effluvia to cause disease? 
A. — I think the tendency is to injure health, and any thing that in¬ 
jures health tends to disease. 

Q .—What are the diseases that are most likely to be caused by 
the presence of such effluvia? A. — I should sa} T dysentery and 
bowel complaints. 

Q. —Are the diseases that are ordinarily caused by the presence of 
sewage effluvia usually fatal diseases? A. — I should think they 
were as fatal as diseases in general, setting aside tuberculous dis¬ 
eases. I should think dysentery was as fatal a disease as typhoid 
fever. 

Q. — Are you not aware of the fact that a very large number of 
diseases is caused bv such effluvia when the diseases are not them- 
selves fatal? A. — Oh, I don’t think that all the ills that are the 
result of bad sewage are fatal, by any means. Bowel-complaints with 
adults are not very fatal. Dysenter}' is a prettj 7 fatal disease when 
it is severe. A number of years ago we had a very fatal epidemic of 
dj’senterv. That was in 1852, I think. 

Q. — Is it not a fact that the attention of medical men, and there¬ 
fore, to some extent, of the community at large, has been specially 
attracted within the last few years to the necessit} 7 of preventing 
what are known as filth diseases? A .—Yes, I think so. I believe 
the profession have got attacked with a little epidemic themselves. 

I think we are like all other classes in the communit}*: when our 
attention is brought to a specific thing, we run it into the ground a 
little, like other professions. 

Q. — Do you think that physicians have gone too far in enjoining 
the necessity of cleanliness and provisions against filth? A. — No, 
sir, I do not think they have. I think that, like everybody else, when 
we want to accomplish an object, we state it as strongly as the real 
facts will warrant. We are like all other folks. 

Q. — Don’t you go as far as the Board of Health of this State go 
in their views as to the necessity of preventing those diseases? A. 
— I don’t know exactly how far they go. 

Q. — Have you ever read their reports on the subject? A. —To a 
certain extent. I have not read them very thoroughly. 

Q. — Did you ever read a document which they circulated in their 
report for 1876, an article written by Dr. Simon? A. — I think I 
read* it at the time. You see I am somewhat along in years, and I 
don’t remember as distinctly as I did thirty or forty years ago. 

Q. — May I ask you whether you have yourself given any special 


203 


attention to this class of diseases ? A. — I have given attention to 
sewerage, so far as to endeavor to keep clear of bad smells myself, 
and to induce my neighbors to do so; and I have tried to see that 
m3’ clients were not seriously injured by the sewerage in the south part 
ol the city. It is only a short time ago that it was carried below 

Quinsigamond. I don’t go as far now as I used to from home. 

Q> — You were content, I presume, when the sewage was carried 
beyond Quinsigamond? A. —Well, I mean to say that I don’t 

practise below there so as to know the effect of it. That is all I 

mean to say. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) — You have had an extensive prac¬ 
tice in your time ; when 3’ou have had a case of t3’phoid fever, have 
you inquired where the sink-drain was, to ascertain whether that was 
the cause of it or not? A. — When I have a case of typhoid fever, 

I inquire all about it. 

Q. — Then 3*011 must have thought that might have been the cause? 
A. —I think a bad stink has a tendei^ to lower health ; and, when 
the health is lowered, I think a person is a great deal more liable to 
have an attack of fever than when he is vigorous. I think that any 
thing that lowers the health renders a person more liable to disease. 

Q. (B3’ Dr. Harris.) —I understood you to sa3* that 3*011 did not 
think sewage produced t3’phoid, except in the way you have stated, 
b3* lowering the general condition of health, and in that case the dis¬ 
ease might be developed ? A. — If I said that, it didn’t exactly give 
m3’ ideas. I said that I didn’t know of a case where the direct cause 
was sewage ; that I couldn’t give a disease that I knew was in the 
habit of being produced b3 r sewage effluvia, etc. That is what I 
meant to sa3\ 

Q. (B3’ the Chairman.) —That is, it might be produced b3 7 that, 
but you don’t feel sure of it? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) — Perhaps 3*011 have a case where eveiy 
member of the household is down with typhoid fever. There can be 
no doubt of that. You look around to see if you can discover the 
cause, and you find that the drain from the sink runs into the prhy, 
and from the privy it has got into the well, through a coarse, gravelly 
soil, and the family have been drinking the water from that well. In 
such a case as that, would 3^011 be led to suppose that the well-water 
had any thing to do with the disease ? A. — If I had one case of 
typhoid fever that w r as brought down from Vermont into a farmhouse, 
and the excreta were carried out, and put into a privy, and from there 
went into the well, and the rest of the family had the disease, I 
should suppose that was the cause. 

Q ,—That is not my question at all. The case I put was an 
actual one. There was a family who lived on a gravelly knoll, and 


204 


almost at the same time, within two or three days of each other, the 
whole family came down with typhoid fever. Of course we looked 
around to find the cause, and we found that the sink-drain was turned 
into the privy, and from there we traced it into the well; and they had 
been drinking that water. My question was, whether, in your 
opinion, that water had any tiling to do with producing typhoid fever 
in that family? A. —I should strongly suspect it did ; and I should 
strongly suspect that there was typhoid matter that got in of some 
kind. And it is generally admitted, I think, by the profession, that 
typhoid fever is propagated quite largely from the excreta getting 
into wells. I have seen lots and lots of instances of that. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) — Don’t you think there is a material differ¬ 
ence between the case of the drainage from a water-closet or privy 
getting into a well, and people drinking the water, and the case 
of sewage flowing into a river, and people smelling the sewage, in 
the way of producing typhoid fever? A. — I should think there was 
a vast difference. I can imagine that smelling bad material might 
reduce nervous energy, and produce nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea, 
especially with a sensitive person. But I have not known (I don’t 
claim to know ever}’ thing, but I have seen a great deal of disease), 
I have not known any case of disease that I supposed was directly 
produced by effluvia from sewage like the sewage that you are con¬ 
templating. I always look after the sewage when I have a case of 
typhoid fever; always look the house over, and, if I find there is any 
thing bad in Worcester, I call on the Board of Health to take care of 
it. 


TESTIMONY OF DR. J. MARCUS RICE. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You have been a practising physician 
in Worcester for how long? A. — Since 1855. 

Q. —You were in the army for a while? A. —Yes, sir. I was 
absent from Worcester for four years, nearly, and also absent about 
a year afterwards, when I was abroad. 

Q. — Where does your practice extend generally? A. — Through 
the city of Worcester. 

Q. — Into the country towns at all ? A. — Somewhat. 

Q. — Do you go to Millbury ? A. — I have not been in Millbury 
much. I have not practised in Millbury. I have been there occa¬ 
sion all} T . 

Q. — Have you known or heard of any diseases, ascribed by the 
profession to the river, as existing in Millbury? A. —Nothing 
more than the general reports which are made to the Board of Health, 
and the report which has been made here to-day by Mr. Adams. 


205 


Q. — That, perhaps, is not exactly an answer to my question. I 
asked you whether you, as a doctor, have heard in your profession of 
the prevalence of any diseases on that river, ascribable to that cause? 
A. — No, sir : not of 1113 ’ own personal knowledge. 

Q. — Is there any such report in the profession, that has come to 
your knowledge as a physician, that there is an}' epidemic prevailing 
down there? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — I want to know if }'Ou know any thing about an increase of 
malaria in this region within a few }'ears? A. —There has been a 
marked increase of malaria within a few years, whereas previously 
there was none. I know in Worcester I have seen some cases within 
the last two or three } T ears that I was unable to trace to any place 
outside of the cit}', and I had no doubt that they originated in the 
cit} r . Also, the reports of other towns show that malaria has in¬ 
creased in other regions in Massachusetts, and in the adjoining towns 
in Connecticut. The malarial disease which I have seen (and I have 
seen, during previous } r ears, a good deal of it) was all imported with 
us ; that is, they were cases of farming men who came from the West 
or South. 

Q. — In regard to t} r phoid fever, what is } T our opinion as to the con¬ 
tagiousness of that disease? A. — I suppose that typhoid fever may 
be conve} T ed in the excretions of a t} T phoidal patient. I am not aware 
that any case is communicated directl} r from the person, in the sense 
that measles and scarlatina are communicated. That is perhaps a 
mooted point. 

Q. — What do you say in regard to the death-rate of a community 
furnishing a standard of its health-rate? A. —It undoubted!}" does, 
in my judgment, furnish a standard for comparison, and the death- 
rate will be largely influenced by the health-rate of a city or a com¬ 
munity, although we have, so far as I know, no sufficient statistics to 
establish that point entirely. 

Q. — You agree in general with Dr. Martin’s testimony? If there 
is any point that you think of, where you desire to express a differ¬ 
ence of opinion from him, please to state it. A. —I believe I have 
not any thing to offer. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q . (By Mr. Flagg.)— You are familiar with the works of Dr. 
Simon, are you not? A. — I have read some of them. 

Q. — You know that he is directly against you when you say that 
the death-rate is a criterion of the health-rate? A. —I understand 
that Dr. Simon says that it does not bear a constant ratio ; but he 
does not say that it does not have an effect upon it. It seems to me, 
as a medical man (and I presume it is the same with others), that the 
health of a community must have something to do with the death-rate. 


N 


206 

Q. — You say 3 T ou do not practise in Millbuiy? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —You are not familiar with the liealth-rate in Millbuiy as dis¬ 
tinguished from the death-rate? A. — No more than the returns 
show. The statistics I am familiar with. 

Q. —The statistics of death-rate, you mean : there are no statistics 
of health-rate, and, in the nature of things, there cannot be? A. — I 
don’t agree with 3 T ou there: in the nature of things, there could not 
be statistics of the health-rate. 

Q. — And there are none such? A. —There are none such, so far 
as I know. 

Q. — As a medical man, knowing Millbury and the Blackstone, if 
3 T ou had heard reports (as 3 f ou sa3^ 3^011 have not) of zymotic diseases 
in Millbuiy, would you have been surprised? A. — I don’t think I 
said that. 

Q. —You said 3'ou had not heard reports of diseases. A. — Epi¬ 
demics , I said. 

Q. —You have heard, then, of diseases? A. —Yes, and I have 
seen them. 

Q. (Ity Dr. Wilson.)— Would 3 T ou have been surprised if you 
had heard of the prevalence of epidemic or z3 T motic diseases in airy 
localit3 T about Worcester? A .— Only this: that we have not often 
had in Worcester, or in the adjoining towns, any epidemic disease. 
There has been a long series of 3’ears since we have had an3 T severe 
epidemic disease in Worcester. 

Q. — So 3 T ou would have been somewhat surprised ? A. — I should 
have been surprised only in that sense. It is always a matter of sur¬ 
prise. We don’t know how epidemic diseases come. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Whether or not you think the sew¬ 
age of Worcester draining into Blackstone River is injurious to 
public health? A. — I should suppose that it would not be benefi¬ 
cial to the inhabitants living along the line. The facts as the3 r are 
shown to us b3 r statistics do not prove it. It is very difficult, some¬ 
times, to sustain our theories b3 r facts, and that is the difficulty in 
this case. The facts are against the theory. 

Q. — If 3 r ou go by the statistics, it rather promotes the public 
health? A . — I didn’t sa3 T that. 

Q. — But you can say that it does not have a sufficiently detrimen¬ 
tal effect to produce any increase in the death-rate? A .— I don’t 
sa3 T that it improves it. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Suppose the facts are, that the health-rate 
of Millbury and the towns below has decreased, is that fact against 
the theory? A. — I said the facts were against the theoiy. I said 
this : that I should suppose that the admission of sewage into the 
Blackstone River would be unhealthy, but that the facts, as devel- 


207 


oped at this hearing, and the facts which appear in the reports of the 
Board of Health, do not bear out that theory. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —Let me ask you a question in regard to} T our 
theory. Is your theory based upon general observation and knowl¬ 
edge, or is it merely imagination? A. — It is based upon general 
observation ; but, when I come down to details, I am not able to 
state. 

Q . —But these special cases don’t sustain the general observation? 
A. — No, sir. There might be contaminating matter put into sew¬ 
age, and it would depend ver} 7 much upon the distance which it had 
to traverse as to the effect. For instance, if typhoid fever is com¬ 
municated by the excretions of the patient, how long a time those 
excretions must remain in the water, and exposed to the air and 
water, before they become inert, is a matter which I am unable to 
state. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —Did you ever know a case of typhoid 
fever where those excrements were absent, or could not be ascer¬ 
tained? A. —I have seen cases of typhoid fever where one person 
was taken down in a family, and I was unable to determine that the 
matter emanated from any other patient. I have seen others in the 
same family contract the disease ; and those cases, I supposed, were 
the result of contamination from the first patient. But, then, there 
are things which modify it. If the people who are in contact with 
the first typhoid case have already had typhoid fever, they are not 
likely to have it. So that that is eliminated. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —You stated that there was a theory that 
the pollution of the river was injurious to the public health. Now, 
if the fact should prove to be that the health-rate in Millbury and 
adjoining towns on the river had decreased, would not that support 
that theory? A. —In so far as that was the fact. 

Q. — And } T ou have already said that you do not know any thing 
about the health-rate of those towns? A. — I don’t know any thing 
about the statistics. 

Q. — So that } f ou don’t know that the facts are against the theory? 
A. — I have stated that I do not know an 3 7 thing about the statistics. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES D. PRATT. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — You live in Worcester? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —And have lived there how long? A. — Forty-twQ years. 

Q. —You were mayor of the city for two or three 3 T ears? A. —I 
was mayor of the city three years. 

Q. —How long ago? A. —I was mayor in 1877, ’78, and ’79. 

Q. — Have you property in Millbury? A. —Yes, sir. 


208 


Q. —Where is your property? A. —In Bramansville. 

Q. — Do yon have occasion to go there frequently? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — How do yoa usually go there? A. —I drive, almost always. 

Q. — Have you been troubled with any smell in going down the 
highway there? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Do you know where this rendering establishment is? A .— 
Yes, sir,—Jeffard & Darling’s. 

Q. — Ever smelt any thing from that on the Millbury road? A. — 
In warm weather I have, when the streams were low. 

Q. — Were you present one Sunday when there was a collection of 
dead fish in the river in Millbury? A. — I was. 

Q. — Won’t you tell us about it? A. —I drove down to Millbury 
one Sunday, just before noon, and my attention was called to the 
fact that there was a lot of dead fish just below Mr. Morse’s fac¬ 
tory, and they wished I w r ould go down and look at them. I stopped 
there, and found a good many dead fish in the water, just below the 
factory. 

Q.—What was the apparent cause of that collection of dead fish? 
A. —Well, there were three or four of us there : we talked the mat¬ 
ter over, and came to the conclusion (I believe we all agreed), that 
as the ponds were very low, and the water was very low there, and it 
was very hot, — the sun shining in there very hot, — the water was 
so heated and so impure that the fish died from that cause. I took 
pains to go below this place, and I found no dead fish there ; and on 
my way home I stopped at several places along to see if I could find 
any between Worcester and Mr. Morse’s factory, and I did not find 
any. I would say, that when I came back from my son’s place in 
Bramansville, I got out and put my hand in the water, to see what 
its condition was ; and it was very warm, very hot water. The water 
was low, and the sun poured in there so that I should think it would 
be difficult for fish to live there anyway. 

Q. —Was there any water flowing into that pond that da}’? A. — 
I think not: the water was very low. There was no water flowing 
into this little pond. 

Q. —Where the fish were? A. — Where the fish were, — no, sir. 

Q. —You have known Mill Brook and the Blackstone River ever 
since you have been in Worcester? A. —Yes, sir, I have. 

Q. —Whether manufacturers have not always been on the river, 
and always put their filth into it, and the inhabitants along the line 
of Mill Brook, ever since you have known it? A. — Yes, sir, they 
have. 

Q. —What kind of a stream was Mill Brook, as long ago as you 
first knew it, in respect to purity? A. —It was never very pure 


209 


since I can remember, — forty 3 r ears. There have alwa 3 T s been these 
manufactories in operation there, and the} r have alwa} 7 s emptied al 
their filth into Mill Brook. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q • (Bj t Mr. Flagg.) —Since the sewage of Worcester has been 
poured into Mill Brook by its present system of sewerage, Mill Brook 
is in a filthier condition than before, is it not? A. — I should think, 
when the water is low, that it would be. 


TESTIMONY OF JOHN McCLELLAN. 

Q. (Bj r Mr. Goulding.) —You live where? A. — I live on the 
Blackstone River, just below Saundersville, near Saundersville depot, 
on the Providence road. 

Q • — In what town ? A. — The town of Grafton. 

Q • — How near to the river do you live? A. — Mj t house is about 
five rods from the river, I think. The public highway goes between. 

Q • — How long have 3 ’ou lived there? A. —Twent 3 ’-seven 3 mars. 

Q . — What is 3 7 our business ? A. — Farming. 

Q. — I want to ask you whether there is any trouble with regard to 
your cattle drinking the water of the river? A. —No: my cattle 
drink the water just as readily as they ever did, when the 3 T have occa¬ 
sion to drink it. To qual^ that a little, I would say, in the common 
run of water. In high water, like what there was two weeks ago, 
there is a good deal of impurity in the water. It is very roily and 

colored ; but probabl 3 r eleven months in the year the 3 T would drink 

< 

the water as freety as an 3 ' water. 

Q . —How does that river generally compare, in point of apparent 
purity, with the condition in w T hich it was the day the Committee 
were down there? A. —Well, ver 3 r different, indeed. I dipped up 
a pail of water that da 3 r , as I have done several times, to test the 
water in the river, and it was very dark, very muddy, and left quite 
a sediment. I let it stand over night, and let the sediment settle in 
the bottom of the pail. The next morning, although the water in the 
river had not abated but little, there was not a quarter as much sedi¬ 
ment as there was the day before. 

Q . — How is it generally with reference to sediment in the river at 
your place? A. —Usually there is no roil in the water. Last fall I 
tried it in a tin pail, and I could see the bottom perfectly, in the 
common run of water, and there was no sediment. There was some 
color in the water. The water has a yellowish color at low water. 

Q , — Did you do this in consequence of any conversation with Mr. 
Esek Saunders at any time? A. —I do not wish to answer that 


210 


question. Mr. Saunders and I are neighbors. I am not disposed to 
question the testimony of any one here. I only state in regard to the 
condition of the river at my place. I had heard it stated that the 
water was very roily, which led me to investigate it somewhat. 

Q. —Now, what was the result of 3 ’our investigation? A. —In the 
common run of water, as I have said, there was no roil in it. It had 
a 3 ’ellowish color, about such as I see in the jar standing there, just 
about the sewage color: but in it» 3 t water there is a great deal more 
impurity now than there was twenty 3 ’ears ago ; and, as proof of this, 
where the water overflows its banks, and spreads on to the mowing 
land, it increases the production of the mowing land perceptibh r . 

Q. — More than it used to? A. —Yes, sir : I have not any doubt. 
I have said repeatedly, that there is a great amount of impurit} T 
emptied into the stream b 3 ’ the sewerage of Worcester ; but my theory 
is, that, there being about nine or ten dams between my place and 
Worcester, nearly all of it settles in those ponds before it reaches my 
place. 

Q. — Have you ever had am’ difficulty in getting your cattle to 
drink this water except during low water, one month in the year, as 
you say? A .—During high water. No, sir: our cattle,' as they 
are driven from the pasture, where there is plent 3 T of P ure spring 
water, will frequently stop at the river, and drink, before going into 
the yard, almost always some of them ; and we have aqueduct water 
in the yard generally from the hills. 

Q. — They prefer the river-water apparently? A. —Well, I don’t 
know that they prefer the river: I mean to say, that, when the 3 T have 
occasion to drink, they go there to drink, just as freely and just as 
readily as the 3 ’ do any water that we have. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —That is the regular drink that you in¬ 
tend to provide for your animals? A. — Yes, sir, in the summer: 
we do not wish to let them out of the yard in the winter time. 

Q •—Yon are speaking now of their drinking it of their own 
accord? A. — Yes, sir: when they are passing by, the\' go to it of 
their own accord. 

Q . (By Mr. Goulding.) —Do you ever pasture them at any time 
on the banks of the river after mowing? A. — Thev sometimes 20 
to the intervale. 

Q. —In such cases do you provide any other water? A. — Noth¬ 
ing but river-water. 

Q. — Are your cattle healthy? A. — Yes, sir: I don’t know but 
they are. 

Q. — Have you heard any complaint about it? A. — I have not 
heard any complaint at all. There is a neighbor of mine in Saunders- 
ville who drives his cattle down to ray barn now twice a day to drink. 


211 


Q* — To drink from your aqueduct? A. —No : at the river. 

Q* — Do you know of any farmers on the river, in your vicinity, 
whose cattle will not drink the river-water? A. — I do not know of 
any cases, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Do I understand you that those 
cattle will drink this water just as readily as they will pond or rain 
water, or brook-water? A. —Yes, sir, just the same, if they have 
occasion to drink. When they are passing the river, they go in and 
drink. *If any of them have not drank what they want in the pas¬ 
ture, the} 7 stop at the river and drink before going into the yard. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —I understood you to say that there were 
times in the year when they did not like the water apparently? 
A. —Yes, sir : when the water is very roily. 

Q. —I understand your answer to be, that there are times in the 
year when they do not like the water? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — If people living in Saundersville, Mr. Chase, Mr. Saunders, 
Dr. Wilmot, and perhaps half a dozen others, have testified that they 
have noticed quite a smell from the river, and that cattle would not 
drink the water, would you have any doubt that their testimony was 
true? A. —Well, all lean say in regard to that is, that we have 
not noticed it at our house, — none of the family. 

Q. — How near is your house to the river? A. — About five rods. 
There is considerable current along by my buildings. 

Q. — Do you know whether there are places on the river where it 
would be likely to be more noticeable than at your house? A .—I 
have no doubt that there are above me. I have said repeatedly, 
that I did not doubt that Millbury people were suffering from the 
effects of the sewage. 

Q. — And at the dams below? A. —There are four dams in Mill¬ 
bury below Mr. Morse’s. If I mistake not, one complaint has been, 
of damming the water and letting the impurities settle ; and it seems 
from my experience that most of the impurities settle in those ponds 
above the dams. 

Q. — And that would be true of the dams below you? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Is this subject a matter of common talk 
in your neighborhood, as to the injury that is done? A. —Yes, sir: 
I think it is. 

Q. — Is there any division of sentiment about it? A. — I should 
think not much division of opinion. Most of the opinion is that it is 
an injury, and I do not say that it is not an injury to us. 

Q .— Is it the general opinion that it is an injury to the public 


health? A.— I have never discovered it, and have never supposed 
it was. 

Q. — What I mean is, whether it is a subject of general talk? A. 

— I have heard it spoken of as being unhealthy in Millbary. 

Q. — Is there any question between the mill-owners and farmers ? 
For instance, is there a set there who say that it is injurious to the 
manufacturing interests, but, on the whole, beneficial to the farming 
interests? A. — I do not know that there has been any division. 
The fact that the mowing lands where the river overflows are more 
productive than they were formerly proves to my mind that there is 
more impurity in the water. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) — So that there is some little advantage to the 
farmers from the overflow of the sewage? A. —Yes, sir: I think 
the lands are more productive. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —Your family has always been well? A. 

— Yes, sir, we enjoy pretty fair health. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What is your age? A. —Seventy-five. 

Q. (B} r Dr. Wilson.)— Have you always lived there? A. — I 
have been there twenty-seven j’ears. 

Q. — Do you live near the river? A. —Five rods from the river : 
about twenty rods from the depot. 

Q. — Do you own real estate in Worcester? A. —No, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —How wide is the river at your place in 
summer-time through the dty season? A. — It is about sixty feet. 
I have a bridge crossing the river opposite my barn which is sixty feet 
long. 

Q. — And about how deep in the deepest part? A. — Well, in low 
water there is veiy little running there. For instance, at low water, 
upon the Sabbath, when they shut down above, there is sometimes 
very little running : you can walk across, without going over shoes, on 
the stones. Then there is an offensive odor, as there always is where 
water is drawn off. There was just as much twenty-five years ago as 
there is now. 

Q. — What sort of odor? What kind of smell is there from the 
water? A. —Well, it is a smell which probably 3 ’ou have noticed, 
when you have drawn off water, — any water that has been standing. 
It is said, by those who claim that there is a bad odor from this river, 
that it is a veiy different odor from that where the water is drawn off. 

Q. — Well, is it a very bad odor — very offensive? A. — Yes. 

Q. — Have you smelt such smells near cesspools ? A. — No, not 
at all. 

Q. — You don’t mean to say that wherever you draw off water that 
has been standing you necessarily have a very bad smell ? A. — Well, 
it is a different smell from a privy or cesspool. 


213 


Q • —You say that the current at your place is quite swift? A. — 
Well, there is some current: not swift, but the water is moving. It 
is between the Saundersville factory and the grist-mill privilege. 

Q • — What is the nearest dam below you? A. — It is the grist¬ 
mill. 

Q • — How far is that from your place? A. —Perhaps a quarter of 
a mile. That is owned by the Saunders cotton-mill. 

— How much fall is there between your place, should you say, 
and that dam? A. —The grist-mill pond sets up very near to my 
barn. 

Q. —Do you know what the amount of fall is? What is the differ¬ 
ence in the height of that dam and the height of your land bordering 
on the river? A. — Well, my land is some two feet above the level 
of the water in that pond. As I said, the pond sets up very near to 
my barn, — the grist-mill pond. 

Q. — Well, there is fall enough to make a current? A. —Yes, sir, 
against the house. The house is nearer the factor}’. Perhaps for ten 
rods there will be a current below the house. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Is there a difference, deacon, between 
this smell which you discover when the water is low, and the smell 
which you discover when any pond is drawn down, or any river, over 
an extensive area which is usually covered with water? A. — It is 
the same. 


TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN HARRINGTON. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You live in Worcester? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you lived in Worcester? A. — Thirty-two 
years. 

Q. — Where were you born ? A. — Westborough. 

Q. — How long have you known the Blackstone River? A. — I 
went lo Millbury to live fifty-six years ago this month. 

Q. — Where did you live in Millbury? A. — I lived in Armory 
Village. 

- Q. — Whereabouts, with reference to the river? A. — My house 
was on what is called Canal Street. 

Q. — How near to the river? A. — It is, perhaps, fifty rods. 

Q. — Were you familiar with the river from that time? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — For how many years? A. — Fifty-six years. I lived in 
Millbury about twenty-six years. I lived in Grafton about two years 
and a half. The rest of the time — fifty-six years — I have lived in 
Millbury and Worcester. 

g. — After you went to Worcester, did you continue to be familiar 


214 


with Millbury and Millbur } 7 people, and the Blackstone River? A. 
— I occasionally worked down the stream. 

Q .—On what? A. — I worked on Whiting’s machine-shop one 
year. I worked most of the season down there, and built the Whiting 
factory, just below the Whitingville depot. 

Q. — Did 3*011 work on anj^ other mills on the stream? A. — I 
built the one at Farnumville twice. 

Q. — Anj r other places on the stream? A. — And the Millbury 
Cotton-Mill. The Wheeler Mill I built three times on Singletary 
Brook. I have worked in all the factories on the streams, setting 
d 3 'e-kettles, and any kettles that tlie 3 * had. 

Q. — Have 3 ’ou any relatives living in Millbury? A. — I have a 
brother who lives on the road to Worcester, where the bend of the 
river is, just before you get into the village. 

Q. — What is his Christian name? A. — David B. 

Q. — Is it in his famity that the aged lady died recently? A .— 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — How old was she? A. — Ninety-two years and four months. 

Q. — Who was she? A. — She was the aunt of his wife. 

Q. — How long had she lived there? A. — She had lived in his 
famil 3 r fifty years. She lived there thirt 3 *-two years. 

Q. — How old is your brother? A. — He was eighty-one last 
month. 

Q. — Have 3 *ou known Mill Brook from an early period? A .— 
Well, I have known it from the Washburn & Moen Works down 
below. 

Q. — For how long? A. — Since 1835, when the factoiy was built 
there. I was at work in Worcester at the same time. 

Q. — Have 3*011 ever worked on the brook ? A. — I spent two and 
a half years there, at the Washburn & Moen Works. 

Q. — What can you say with regard to the purity of that stream 
before it was used for the drainage and sewage of the cit 3 ^? A .— 
Well, all the factories standing on Blackstone River, and Singletary 
Brook, and Mill Brook, always had their privies standing over the 
stream ; and all the vitriol they used went into the stream. 

Q. — Can you say any thing about the condition of Mill Brook 
when you came to Worcester thirty or thirty-two years ago, or later? 
A. — Well, at times when there has been no rain, the stream is a 
great deal fouler than it is when there is a great deal of surface-water 
emptying in, as there is in the spring of the year. 

Q. — Have you known about any other deaths in Millbury recently? 
A. —There is a Mrs. Bixb 3 *, whom J used to know when I lived 
there. She died this winter at the age of ninety-seven. 

Q. — Where did she live? A. — I don’t know where she died. 


215 


When I lived in Millbury she lived on the road to the Old Common, 
we call it. 

Q. —Not near the river? A. — No, sir. Mr. Greenwood died 
right on the bank of the river. One of the witnesses, I understood, 
testified to a case of typhoid fever,—one of the doctors, I think it 
was. That man lived near the cotton-mill when I was there, the next 
house to the boarding-house. I noticed a well on the lower side of 
the house', and there was a pump in it, and a heap of manure about 
eight feet high near by, and a sink-drain emptying outside of the 
house, about twenty-five feet off. Underneath is a ledge pitching 
towards the well, and I thought perhaps the impurity might get into 
the well, as T have known several cases in my experience. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —How old was Mr. Greenwood? A. —He 
lived to a considerable age: I don’t recollect exactly; upwards of 
eight}’, I should judge. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — Have you been engaged in digging 
drains? A. —I put in the first sewer, probably', that was laid in 
Worcester, from the Old Exchange down to Thomas-street Brook. 
That was in 1851, I think, or 1852. 

Q. —The Bay State House, when that was built, what did that 
drain into? A. —That drained into Mill Brook. I did not put that 
in. 

Q. — Is the Thomas-street Brook you speak of, Mill Brook? A. — 
It was originally Mill Brook. They have been changing the course 
of Mill Brook, and left that portion off. 

Q. —That is, in more recent years? A. — Yes, sir: within a few 
years. 

Q. —But at the time you laid the sewer, that was the natural 
channel through which Mill Brook flowed? A. —Yes, sir. Then, 
two years after, I put one in Front Street, from Chestnut Street down 
to where the viaduct crosses. 

Q. — When was that laid? A. —I think that was in 1853 or ’54. 
It took part of two years; that is, I did part in one year, and the 
other afterwards. 

Q. — Now, have you observed the water in the sewers at any time? 
A. —I have frequently had occasion to go into the sewers in the 
street for the purpose of entering the side drains, and I have noticed 
that, when there had been no rain for a week or two, the water seemed 
to be as pure — that is, clear — as spring-water. There is an odor 
about it. 

Q. —Do you see any floating refuse matter or suspended matter in 
the water on such occasions? A. —No, sir: there will be a little 
sediment at the bottom. 



216 


Cross-Examination. 

Q . (By Ml*. Flagg.)— What is the condition of the Blackstone 
River now compared with what it was when 3 T ou were living in Mill- 
bury? A .—Well, I was at Mill bury just before this last heavy 
rain — 

Q. — Are you familiar with the general condition of the river now ? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —What is its general condition now, as compared with what it 
was when 3*011 lived in Millburv? A. —I do not see am* marked 
difference. 

Q. — Were 3*011 familiar with Armory Village in Millbur 3 *? A. — 
Yes, sir: I worked there a great man 3 * da 3 *s. 

Q. — A great man 3 T workmen worked there at the forge-shop, trip¬ 
hammers, etc. ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — You knew then that the 3 * used the river-water for drinking, 
didn’t you? A. — I heard the testimony here the other day : that is 
all I know. I didn’t suppose the 3 * drank it: I didn’t drink it. 

Q. — You did not know that the 3 ^ did? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —You do not know the 3 * did not? A. —I have seen the work¬ 
men go to wells veiy frequent^, or send bo 3 *s. 

Q. —That was in the summer-time, when they wanted cold water? 
A. —I never knew that the 3 T drank it. 

Q. —You were not one of the workmen? A. —No, sir: I did not 
work in the mill. My business was mason business. 

Q .—Those old people who died lived the greater part of their 
lives before the system of sewerage was put in — that was put in in 
1868, ’69, and ’70? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — And died soon after? A. — It is thirty years since I put the 
first sewer in. 

Q .—You spoke of the sewers that you put in or worked on in 
Worcester. in 1851, and the Ba 3 ^ State sewer in 1856 of ’57? A. — 
I did not put in the Ba 3 * State sewer. 

Q. — Are you familiar with the present system of sewers? A. — 
Yes, sir: I work about them all the time, more or less. 

Q. —Do 3 *ou know that there are fort 3 *-four different ones? A. — 
I don’t know how maii 3 r sewers there are. 

Q. —And that the S 3 *stem drains eight square miles? A. — I 
should not think it would drain so much. There is a good deal more 
draining to be done in Worcester. I should think about two-thirds 
of the inhabitants were accommodated with sewers. 

Q. — Two-thirds of about sixt 3 * thousand ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —The sewer that you speak of as having put in in 1851, and 
the Bay State sewer, that was put in in 1856, aqd one or two others, 


217 


drained nothing in comparison with the present system ? A. —No, 
siq. 

Q. — Can 3 'on tell how many houses were connected with those 
sewers? I am now referring to the one 3*011 worked on in 1851, 
and the Ba 3 ' State House sewer. A. — In 1850 or 1851 there were 
not a great mam'; perhaps a dozen. That was a short sewer : it did 
not go low enough to benefit the people on the lower side of the 
street, but those on the upper side. The one on Front Street, there 
was quite a number, — some shoe-shops, — and as fast as they built 
buildings, the 3 ^ entered them all, and a good many of the old ones. 
It took all the surface sewage. 

Q. — Was not the purpose of those sewers mainl 3 T to take care of 
the surface drainage ? If it had not been for that, would the\ T have 
been put in? A. —I suppose that that was one purpose, and the 
other was to enable people to get rid of the sewage of their estates. 

Q. —How man 3 ’ water-closets on Front Street were connected 
with that sewer that 3 011 put in in 1851 ? A. — Well, there was the 
Harrington Block and Piper’s Block. 

Q. — Were those connected with the sewer at the time 3 ’ou put it 
in? A. — Those were large blocks. 

Q. — Were the 3 r connected with the sewer when you put it in, in 
1851? A. —Very soon after. 

Q. — How soon after? A. — I should say within a year. I won’t 
be positive whether the Harrington Block was built just before or 
just after the sewer was put in. The City Hall w^as connected, and 
Dr. Kelley’s Block, and S. R. Leland’s, and the new blocks all along 
dowm Front Street, as the 3 T were built. 

Q. — As the 3 ’ were built? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — But not in 1851? A. — No: they have not all stood so 
lon^ as that. 

o 

Q. —Now, can you state about the Bay State sewer? What emp¬ 
tied into that when it was built in 1856? A. — The sewage of the 
house. I don’t know of any thing else, — the house and the wash¬ 
ing-department. 

Q . — Now, you speak of one other sewer, — the one on Thomas 
Street. How many houses emptied into that? A. — Well, there 
was Hobbs’s Block — that was a block of stores and houses — and 
several smaller houses. 

Q. — How large w^ere these sewers that you speak of? A. —That 
on Main Street, Thomas-street Brook, was about twent 3 '-six inches 
hio-h, two feet horizontal. The one on Front Street, if I recollect 
right, is thirty by thirty-nine inches, — egg-form. 

Q . — And the Thomas-street sewer? H.—The Thomas-street 
sewer is a continuation of Main. 


218 


Q. —Yon have named, in fact, about all the houses that emptied 
into those sewers when they were built, have you not? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. —And the rest since they have been built, from time to time? 
A. —I have named them as they were put in, a good part of them, 
as we went along; that is, within a year or two: and then others have 
entered from that time to this. 

Q. — Are those sewers that you speak of in use now? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. —They have put in no new ones in place of them ? A. — They 
have built one up Front Street, on the north side, because, when the 
first one was put in, Fox’s Pond prevented their putting it as low as 
they have put the new one, and the}' are both in use to-day. That is 
about four feet deeper. Since the} 7 drew the pond down, it enables 
them to put their sewer lower, so as to drain the cellars, and avoid 
the back water which came up in the old sewer. There was not 
capacity enough to convey it off, and it flowed into the cellars ; but, 
by having this new sewer four feet lower, and connecting with that, 
they avoid that difficulty. 

Q. — Is the Bay State sewer used in the same manner? A. —The 
old Mill Brook, you understand, came up very near, almost under the 
Bay State stable ; I don’t know but it did come up under the corner 
of the stable, and the sewer was simply to go right into that valley, 
without connection with any other sewer. It goes right into the 
brook. 

Q. — Is that the present drainage from the Bay State House? A. 
— 1 suppose they have continued it, because there is a sewer goes up 
now to meet their case in Central Street. 

Q. — It was originally used only for the Bay State House? A .— 
Yes, sir. The sewage of the Bay State House now goes probably 
into the continuation and into the Central-street sewer. 

Q. — Made for all the inhabitants between the Bay State and Mill 
Brook at present? A. —There are no inhabitants but horses there 
between the Bay State and the old Mill Brook. There are people 
living between the Bay State and the present Mill Brook. 

Q. — About the Thomas-street sewer, has that been replaced? 
A. — They have built a new sewer. When they changed the course of 
Mill Brook, they had to continue it farther east, and started a new 
sewer, and came up to Main Street. I cannot say whether it is larger 
or not. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —You said that when you had occasion to 
make an entrance into the main sewer for the purpose of connecting 
the side sewers, you found the water to be clear, with very little sedi- 
ment? A. —Yes, sir. 


219 


Q •—What inference would you have us make from that, — that 
there is no polluting matter? A .—There is an odor attached to it. 

Q-—Nothing that apparently pollutes the water, and no heavy 
sewage, apparently, passes through those drains? A. — It is diluted 
so that it is not perceptible. 

Q •—You would not know there was any thing being passed 
through there, unless it was from the odor? A. —No, sir: if I saw 
it in the spring, and did not smell any odor. 

Q . —Do you think that is the rule in regard to sewers in Worces- 
tes? A. —That has been my experience. 

Q. — Therefore you would not think there was any^ thing objection¬ 
able that went out of those sewers into the Blackstone River? A. — 
I have never experienced an} 7 thing offensive, and I have been en¬ 
gaged putting in these side sewers more or less for thirty years. I 
have not called a physician but once for six or eight years for sick¬ 
ness. I have had accidents. 

Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) —Is that the condition in which you find 
them at the present da} 7 , or are you speaking of their condition some 
years ago? A. — It has been so for years. 

Q. — At the present time you find it so, you think? A. —I 
think so. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —You work there about all the time, as 
I understand you? A. —Yes, sir. I don’t cut so many holes now 
in the sewers as I used to. I have given that up ; but I have access 
to it, and see them cut, and sometimes cut them myself. 

Q. —You work in all parts of the city? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q .—Then your remark does not apply to any one section of the 
city more than another? A. —No, sir, only as regards the sewers 
that I have put in. The main sewers, the principal sewers, have 
been put in by other parties. I am engaged in constructing private 
drains all over the city, wherever they want them. 

Q. (By Mr. Chambkrlain.) —You are engaged in putting in those 
drains for the city, or for private parties? A. —The main drains are 
put in by the city : the private drains, by the owners of the estates. 

Q. —Then you are employed now, and have been during these past 
years, mainly by the city of Worcester? A. — No, sir. 

Q .—You are principally in the employment of private parties? 

^4._The city of Worcester have a gang of hands of their own, and 

men to manage, and do it themselves. There is very little done out¬ 
side of what they do themselves now. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Was not a sewer built up Pleasant 
Street as early as 1851 to Dr. Gordon’s house? A .—There was a 
stone sewer put up Pleasant Street. I think that went up nearly to 
Oxford Street, — a square stone sewer. 


i 


220 


Q. — With what did that connect at the lower end? A. — It con¬ 
nected with the sewer that I put into Main Street. 

Q. (B} r Mr. Flagg.) —Mr. Harrington, twenty years ago, you 
were familiar with Mill Brook? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — It then was noticeably dirty? A. — There were times when 
it would be considerably clear, and others when it was foul. 

Q. — Looking at it, you would sa}^, irrespective of the odor, that 
it was dirty? A. — After heavy rains, the surface water would always 
make it look roily’. 

Q. — Now, do I understand 3*011 that, looking at it to-da}*, but for 
the odor, you would not notice an} T difference? A. — I should not 
know any difference between its condition now and twenty years ago, 
as far as that is concerned. 

Q. —Twenty 3 *ears ago, what did }*ou notice? A. — There is 
always more or less color in Mill Brook, and most all streams about 
any manufacturing city of fortv r thousand inhabitants. We get this 
appearance an}*where. There is a good deal of the Piedmont sewer 
that don’t strike the river until it gets down below Quinsigamond. 
Mill Brook goes down in the channel of the old canal. I notice that 
it is frequently colored b 3 * the matter that comes from the shops and 
d}*e-houses. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) — It is not the sewage that makes that color 
wholl}*? A. — No, sir. 

Q. (Bj* Mr. Tiiirell.) — I would like to ask 3*011 what proportion 
of the population of the city of Worcester has Mill Brook for its nat¬ 
ural sewer? That is, supposing there was no sewer in Worcester, 
and the people dumped their water and so forth right into the streets, 
or anywhere, what proportion would find its way naturally into that 
stream? A. —Two-thirds, I think. 

Q. — And, taking the other third, where would it find its way 
naturally? A. — Well, it would ultimate^ go around through New 
Worcester, as we call it, and come in just above Quinsigamond Pond, 
before you get to Quinsigamond Pond. All west of that would 
come into Quinsigamond Pond either from Mill Brook or the stream 
the other way. 

Q. —Now, by what theory do you explain what you have stated, 
that the brook is no more filthy at the present time than it was twenty 
or twenty-five years ago? A. —The quantity of water that comes in 
contact with the simple sewage of the city is so large that it would 
be hardl 3 * perceptible, I think. 

Q. — How does the quantit 3 * of water that is poured into that 
brook now compare with the quantity of water there was in the 
brook before the sewerage system was introduced? A. — I was not 
aware that there was very much difference, take the year through. 


The freshets are not so high as they used to be before they got so 
man}" dams. For instance, I have seen the water at Millbury, before 
they raised the road west of Gowan’s Bridge, as it is called, go up 
over the top of the wall, in an average j’ear, because there were no 
dams to keep it back. Now they have raised the road a little higher 
than the wall, and I have not seen it go over there. 

Q. (B} r the Chairman.) —How long has Worcester had aqueduct 
water from Bell Pond ? A. —They had it about thirty-five years ago, 
I think. 

Q. (B}* Dr. Hodgkins.) —In consequence of the city having in¬ 
troduced water, there is more water running into Mill Brook now 
than formerl}"? A. — Of course: all the city water runs into Mill 
Brook. 

Q. — And for that reason, you suppose the sewage is diluted in 
proportion to the increased quantit}" of water? A. — Yes, sir. For 
instance, a person using a water-closet will let on from one to five 
pails of water. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You said that one-third of the drainage 
of Worcester would go into Quinsigamond Pond. You don’t mean 
Quinsigamond Lake, but }’ou mean Quinsigamond River? A. — No, 
I don’t mean Quinsigamond Lake; I mean Washburn & Moen’s 
pond, and the pond at Quinsigamond village. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —On p. 118 of tiie Report of the State Board 
of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, the sewerage area of the city of 
Worcester is stated to be about 20J square miles. Is that about 
right? A. —Well, I should think it was very nearly correct. 

Q. — Now, do you wish the Committee to understand, that if the 
inhabitants of this 20^ square miles used privies, and threw all their 
slops and disposed of their sewage as they would have to without a 
system of sewerage, two-thirds of that would go into Mill Brook.' A. 
— Why, I don’t know where it would go to, unless it would be ab¬ 
sorbed into the ground. 

Q. — Would not the contents of the privies remain there until they 
were removed? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q, _Didn’t it cost the city of Worcester $1,500,000 to make this 

stuff go into Mill Brook, because it would not naturally go there? A. 

_Why, if you take the whole expense of introducing water, and 

building all the sewers, and stoning up Mill Brook, and every thing, 
perhaps it has. 

Q. _So that it is not a fair inference from your answer that two- 

thirds of this would have gone into Mill Brook any way? A. —I 
don’t know where it would have gone, only it would have been ab¬ 
sorbed into the ground. The water-sheds all pitch into the brook. 

Q. _That is ail you mean to say: that the natural water-shed 


222 


of part of the city of Worcester drains into Mill Brook? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —You have been familiar with this river 
thirty- or forty years, more or less? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How does its condition as to odor, looks, and so forth, to-day, 
compare with its condition twenty years ago? A. — I did not ob¬ 
serve very much odor the other day r when I was there. The difference 
in the appearance of the water was not marked to me. It is all the 
water that my brother’s cattle have to drink. 

Q. — How about looks ? was it a clear stream twenty years ago ? 
A. —I should think it would compare fairly with other rivers. It 
has rather a muddy bottom in many places. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You speak about your brother’s cattle. 
You mean, your brother’s cattle drink that water there? A. —Yes, 
sir; and have done so ever since he lived there. 

Q. — And do so still? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Do you know of any trouble about their drinking the river- 
water? A. —I never heard of any. 

Q. (Byr Mr. Hamlin.) — Where does your brother live? A. — His 
barn is about twenty-five feet from Morse’s Pond. It is the place 
where one of the witnesses from Millburv testified there w r as the most 
odor in the street. It is what was a bend of the original river. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Do y'ou know that they drink the 
water now? A. — I was there since the examination in February, 
and talked with him about it, and saw him turn out his cattle. 

Q. — In regard to that particular point, do you know that cattle 
drink the water? A. — Just as readily as they do any other water. 
He said nothing to the contrary. 

Q. — Has he any other water to give them? A. — He has a well 
that he could draw from, but he does not do it. 

Q. — Instead of drinking the water from the well, they go to the 
river? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) —You saw them drink while you were 
there? A. — No : he was unwell, and didn’t turn them out that day ; 
but his yard runs right down to the stream. I have seen them drink 
repeatedly. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Instead of pumping the water, he 
lets them go to the river? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —What is your brother’s name? A .— 
David B. 

Q. — You say he was unwell a short time ago? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — What was the matter w r ith him ? A. — He thought it was 
indigestion. He didn’t have a physician. He said he suffered pain 
across the chest. 

Q. —didn’t he call it cholera-morbus? A . — No, sir. 


223 


Q. r— Haven’t you so stated? A. — No, sir: “indigestion” is 
what he said it was. 

Q . — Didn’t you tell Mr. C. D. Morse that he thought it was chol¬ 
era-morbus? A. — Mr. C. D. Morse said something about cholera- 
morbus : I didn’t. 

Q. — Didn’t 3*011 say it was cholera-morbus? A. — No, sir: I 
didn’t consider it so. 

Q .— Didn’t your brother tell you he had never suffered so in his 
life? A. — He said he never suffered so much severe pain in six 
hours as he did the day before I was there. I didn’t know that he 
was sick. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —When was this? A .—I think it was 
either Tuesday or Wednesda3* after the first hearing. 

Q .—Your brother is how old? A .—He was eighty-one last 
month. 

Q. (B3* Mr. Morse.) —Do 3*011 desire to have the Committee 
understand that 3*011 personal^* saw cattle drink out of the river? A. 

— I have seen them drink. 

Q. —When? A. — Well, I haven’t been there very often for the 
last four or five 3'ears. 

Q. — What is the last time that you will say positively that 3 011 
saw cattle drink out of the river? A. — I should think it was two or 
three 3*ears ago last August. 

Q. —You feel positive of that time? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Whose cattle were they? A. — David B. Harrington’s. 

Q .—You mean, at your brother’s place? A. — Yes, sir. I was 
stopping there with him a few days, and saw them. 

Q. — Have you any special reason for remembering the time? A. 

— Yes, sir. 

Q. — Why ? A. — I was doing a job of work for him. 

Q. — Wh3* should you take special notice of the fact that his cattle 
drank at the river? A. — I went out to the barn with him when he 
was doing his chores, and saw then! go down and drink. 

Q. — Did 3*ou have any special reason for noticing that cattle 
drank water at the river? A. — I did not make any report of it then. 

Q .—Ordinarily speaking, I don’t suppose 3011, or anybody else, 
would notice particularly where cattle drink. I want to know whether 
there was anv thing remarkable in the fact that cattle should drink 
the water of this particular river, that you should remember it? A. 
_No, sir: I should think it was a very natural case. 

Q. — Then you have no special reason for remembering it? A. — 

Yes, sir. 

Q. _ You fix that one time? A. — Yes, sir: that one time that I 

was there. I spent several days there. 


224 


Q. — Which was it, two or three years ago? A. — I won’t be 
positive whether it was two or three years. 

Q. — Have you been there since? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How many times ? A. — I have been there two or three times 
since. 

Q. — Have you ever seen cattle drink at the river since? A. —I 
don’t know as I have been out to the barn. 

Q. — Have 3*011 noticed an3 T other person’s cattle drink from the 
river? A. — I don’t know that I have. 

Q. —Did 3*ou ever make any inquiry whether the}* did or not? A. 

— Yes, sir. 

Q. — When? A. —The last time 1 was there. 

Q. — Of whom ? A. — Of him and his wife. 

Q. — What did they say ? A. —The}* said they had never provided 
any other place for cattle to drink. 

Q .—Did your brother state that his cattle drink the water from 
the river now? A. — Yes. sir. 

Q . (By the Chairman.) — Was it a subject of discussion, whether 
cattle would drink water from the river, or not? A . — Well, I don’t 
always tell all the secrets. 

Q .—Is it a question that is discussed in the town, whether the 
cattle will drink the water from the river, or not? Do you know of 
any question arising down there, whether cattle will drink that water, 
or not? A. —I don’t know any thing in regard to other places. 

Q. —Was that the reason why you happened to speak of it? A. 

— Just as I was starting off he and his wife both alluded to the hear¬ 
ing down here, and they both remarked that they did not see any 
occasion for making such statements. They never had made the dis¬ 
covery themselves. They spoke of this: that they had not had a 
physician for sickness, himself and wife and two daughters, I think, 
for over thirty years ; and they did not attribute any of their ill-feel¬ 
ings to the water. 

Q .—That is what I want to get at. Do you know any more talk 
of that kind down there amongst the people? Have you talked with 
other citizens down there? A. — I have not talked much with the 
citizens down there. I haven’t been down there very much. I have 
been at his house once or twice a year. 

Q. —Did you hear him say there was any difference of opinion on 
that subject down there? A. — Well, he said some folks were com¬ 
plaining, but he didn’t discover it in its effects upon himself or his 
family or cattle. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.)— How about the smell? Did he complain 
about it? A. — He did not complain of it; never has complained 
of it. 


225 


Q • — Did he say that he or his family had observed those bad odors ? 
A. — He did not say any thing about his daughters saying any thing 
about it one way or the other; but himself and his wife both spoke of 
not making the discovery of this offensive smell except, when the water 
was low, there might be a little odor, but it didn’t trouble them. 

Q. (By Mr. Hamlin.) —Did they mention it as being any different 
from what it was several years ago? A. —No, sir, they did not say 
thing about any difference. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —I don’t quite understand of what 
the people of Millbury were complaining. You say the } 7 had heard 
complaints from others. I want to know whether those complaints 
related to drinking the water, or whether there was an } 7 complaint 
except what you have heard since this hearing? A. — No, sir. 

Q. —When they were speaking of it did they say that other people 
complained that their cattle did not drink the water ? A .—I think 
they did not say any thing about cattle. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH S. PERRY. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You are a resident of Worcester? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Q. — One of the Highway Commissioners there? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Been so for a number of years? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you always lived in Worcester? A. —With the excep¬ 
tion of some twelve years. I was at Auburn for some years, but I was 
in the city every day. 

Q. —Do you own any real estate on this Mill Brook or Blackstone 
River? A. — I own some twelve or fifteen houses below Cambridge 
Street. 

Q. — How long have you owned them? A. — I have been build¬ 
ing them for the last six or eight years. 

Q. —You rent them? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do you know of any trouble from any diseases in those 
houses arising from the river? A. —I never heard of any. 

Q. — The tenements rent without any trouble? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — I will ask you in regard to the scavenging of the streets, 
whether you clean the streets and carry off the filth, and to what 
extent? A. — Yes, sir: we aim to clean up the paved streets cer¬ 
tainly twice a week; sometimes we clean up oftener. We calculate 
for the future to clean them up nearly every morning. 

Q. —But you have in the past cleaned them twice a week? A. — 

Yes, sir. 

Q. — And where do you carry this stuff? A. — We carry it off, and 
dump it for manure and filling. 


226 


Q. — Does it get into the Blackstone River? A. —No, sir. 

Q. — How much, in round numbers, do } T ou cany off a week? A. 

■— I should think we average from fifty to a hundred loads a week, 
probabl}’, from the paved streets. 

Q. —How many of the streets are paved? How much in miles? 
A. — I think that we have some seven or eight miles of paving. 

Q .—As to the gutters in the other streets, what do j-ou do with 
them? A. —We clean them up every spring all in good shape, and 
then we clean them occasionally during the summer. 

Q. — Have } T ou known Mill Brook for a good many years? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — And the Blackstone River? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — With regard to the former condition of Mill Brook, as to its 
purity, how long has it been impure? A. —I should think, on 
account of the increase of manufacturing establishments, it is more 
impure than formerly ; but, according to the statements made, it is not 
caused by the sewage. It is caused by the manufacturing more than 
the sewage, I should think. 

Q. — But as to the fact of the impurity, how long has Mill Brook 
been an impure stream, to 3'our knowledge, and to what extent? A. 

— Well, more or less, alwa}’s. 

Q. —How was it twenty or thirty years ago? A. —Well, it was 
somewhat impure, but not quite so much, perhaps, as at the present 
time. 

Q. —When Fox’s Pond existed, what kind of a hole was that? A. 

— A pretty nasty hole : a great deal of sediment used to settle in 
there. Fish used to grow pretty large there. 

Q .—Your department takes care of the catch-basins. A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q. —You have some friends who live at Ludlow Pond, where 
Springfield gets its source of supply? A .—My wife’s father owns 
the farm next to that place. 

Q. — Do you know any thing about any dead fish appearing in that 
reservoir? A. — Last season a gentleman by the name of Graves, 
who has the care of the place, said he gathered about five hundred 
pailfuls of dead fish. 

Q. — Was any cause assigned for that? A. —No, sir: there is 
no sewage away up in the country. 

Q -— Do 3’ou know any thing about the rendering establishment 
down there in Millbury, or near Millbury? A .—Jeffard & Dar¬ 
ling’s : }’es, sir. 

Q • — What is it? A. — It is where the dead horses, refuse, bones, 
and every thing that is gathered up of that kind, is carried. 

Q. — How near to the river is it? A. — The railroad is between 


227 


that and the river; I should think, something like twent} r -five or forty 
rods. 

Q- —Did you ever notice any smell from it? A. — Yes, sir: in 
warm weather I do very much. 

Q • — Where? A .—As you go down to Millbury, not from where 

I am. 

Q • — On the Millbury road you have noticed it? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q- — Might not that be the smell that people would smell from the 
road? A. —It is the only smell that I have ever smelt. 

Q. — Ever discovered any smell from the river as } T ou were passing 
along the road ? A. —No, sir. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.)— Do you work on the sewers? A. — I 
have charge of the highways. 

Q. —The effect of this scavenging is to keep from the sewers all 
the refuse of the streets? A. —Yes: we keep everything as neat 
and nice as we can. 

Q. — Do you know the sewage-flow into Mill Brook, the number 
of gallons per day? A. —No, sir, I do not. 

Q. — The State Board of Health state it to be three million gal¬ 
lons. Do } t ou think, if you keep out the refuse of the streets, that 
that three million gallons is mostly water-closet sewage and house 
refuse? A. —We clean up the streets as well as we can. 

Q .—If that went in, the sewage would be still worse than it is? 
A. —I should think it would. 

Q. — What is done with this stuff? A. — It is carried off: the 
farmers come and get it where we dump it. We sell it to them. 

Q. — Where do you dump it? A. —We carry it on to Summer 
Street at the present time. 

Q .—Is there not a rendering establishment on the old road to 
Millbuiy, the road leading down towards Dorothea Pond? A. — 
There is a place there where they take in dead horses. 

Q. — Is not that the only place where dead horses are taken ? A. — 
No, sir. 

Q. — Isn’t it a fact that for two years they have not taken any 
dead horses to this place of Jeffard & Darling’s? A. —I did not 
know it was a fact. 

Q. — I)o you know of anybody taking any there? A. —Yes, sir : 
I have taken them there myself, I think, within less than three years. 

Q. —Then you have no knowledge of that being a rendering estab¬ 
lishment within three 3-ears? A. — I did not know but they carried 
horses there the same as usual. I know they carry any amount of 
bones there that smell pretty strong. 


228 


Q. — So that you now change your testimony, and say you don’t 
know that dead horses have been rendered there ? A. — I know they 
have been. 

Q. — But not within three years? A. —I can’t say as to that. 

Q. — So that if there is no rendering there, and has not been for 
three years, and there is an odor, it cannot come from dead horses? 
A. —There are thousands of loads of bones go there that are pretty 
strong. 

Q .— In working over the sewers, has your sense of smell been 
blunted? A. —Not that I know of: I can’t sa}\ 

Mr. Goulding. There is one false impression that might be 
created by a question put by Mr. Flagg, in which he said that the 
State Board of Health reported the sewerage area of Mill Brook as 
20 ^ square miles. We are not quite as large as that comes to. The 
drainage area of Mill Brook is 12 J miles. The 20 J miles is the entire 
drainage area of the city. 

Adjourned to Friday at ten o’clock a.m. 


f 


229 


SIXTH HEAKING. 


The hearing was resumed at 10 o’clock. 


Friday, March 17, 1882. 


TESTIMONY OF A. B. LOVELL. 

Q. (B} r Mr. Goulding.) —You reside in Worcester? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — How long have you lived in Worcester? A. — Sixty years. 

Q. — That is about your age, I suppose? A. — A little above that. 

Q. — How long have 3 T ou been acquainted with Mill Brook ? A. — 
I have lived close b} T it all my life ; within three-quarters of a mile, 
and sometimes bordered on it. 

Q. —As a bo}’, you were accustomed to sail on it, fish in it, etc.? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Won’t you tell us a little about the history of Mill Brook as 
briefly as possible? A. — I lived at one time near the old jail, at a 
public house, close by the brook. The brook there is stoned up on 
both sides. 

Q. —That is some distance above Lincoln Square, in the northerly 
part of the city? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Was it stoned up on both sides when you first knew it? A. 
— Yes, sir. Then it went down just below the square to a factory 
or machine-shop. The old jail stood there on the corner. The 
stream ran down there, and took the sewage from the privies and 
the public house and the old jail. Then it ran down below the 
factory, stoned up, to old Market Street, and entered a pond near 
where there was a machine-shop and blacksmiths’ shops ; and there 
were privies all along the border of the brook, on both sides. Then 
it left there, and went down from School Street to Thomas Street, 
stoned up on both sides ; and the buildings on each street bordered 
on the brook, and the privies used to stand over the brook all 
along down. Before you got there, about midway between School 
Street and Thomas Street, J. P. Kettell used to have a hat manufac¬ 
turing-shop, and used to drain his d3 T estuff into the brook, and 
darken the water; and, when we wanted to fish in the brook, we had 
to wait until this dyestuff cleared away so that we could see the 
bottom of the brook. At that time, after we left Thomas Street, 
there was no other street from Thomas Street all through the 


I 


230 

meadow; but the brook was stoned up below Thomas Street, about 
half-way between Thomas Street and Central Street (as it is now) : 
the rest of the way it was an open brook through the meadow. Then 
it went down through the meadow near Rice, Barton, & Fales’s fac- 
tory, and then it entered the brook, — that is, the old natural brook. 
But, after the canal was made, there was a gate built in it, and the 
water filled the upper basin. There were two entrances from this 
brook into the canal. 

Q. — When was the canal made? A. —I think in 1827 or ’28. 
That is, the first boats came up then. 

Q .—Were there any other manufactories or dwellings on the 
brook below Rice, Barton, & Fales’s, before it reached the Blackstone 
River? A. — Oh, yes, sir : all along down the river. 

Q. — How many, and what were the principal ones? A. — A 
good man} 7 of them that bordered on the brook had their privies over 
the brook. There was a basin right there by Rice, Barton, & Fales’s, 
where the boats used to land. Then, there was another basin up 
near the square where the boats used to come up. It was in 1828 
that the first boat came up. The sewer was before that. 

Q . (By Mr. Flagg.) —The sewer? A. —You might call it a 
sewer. Stone sewers went into the brook. They have been discon¬ 
tinued since. 

Q . (By Mr. Goulding.) — How many stone sewers went into it as 
long ago as 1828? A. —There was one in Thomas Street, that lies 
there now: that lies there dormant. There was another in School 
Street. I guess the one on School Street has mostly been taken up. 
It went down there below the basin into the old mill-pond, where the 
old red grist-mill stood. The first gate was there; and the water 
flowed back to the upper basin. That old mill-pond was a kind of 
catch-all for every thing, at that time, and all along for years. Dead 
animals of all kinds were thrown in there. I have seen dead hogs, 
dogs, cats, and every thing else of that kind, in the pond. That is 
not done now, because the city don’t allow it. At that time it was a 
very common thing to see dead animals, and one thing and another, 
floating around in the pond. 

Q. — How did the purity of the stream forty years ago compare 
with its present condition, so far as is apparent to the eye? A .— 
After the canal was built, we couldn’t see the bottom of the canal: 
it was muddy. The black meadow mud used to wash in there, and 
keep it roily, so that we could hardly ever see the bottom of the canal 
after the boats began to run. In fishing for suckers, we have got 
to go to the bottom; and it was always dark. Once or twice they 
dug out where the brook enters the basin, because the mud got in 
there. 


231 


Q • — What brook do you refer to ? A. — I refer to this brook that 
runs through the city. 

Q . — You mean Mill Brook ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q •—Mill Brook ran into the canal? A. —Yes, sir: supplied it. 

Q. — After the canal was constructed, the whole of Mill Brook 
flowed through the canal, I suppose? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Have you known the Blackstone River ever since } T ou were 
3 ’oung? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q.—What have you observed about the ancient purity of that 
stream, if anything, as compared with its present purity? A. — I 
don’t think it is an} T better now. Of course, there is more empties 
into it now than then, as far as that is concerned. 

Q. — Do you remember any thing about its old condition,— 
whether it has been for a good many years polluted, or whether the 
pollution is a recent thing? A. —Ever since I can remember, there 
has been more or less drainage into it from the estates all along its 
borders. 

Q .—Your business is that of a manufacturer of sewer-pipe, is it 
not? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —Have }’ou done a good deal of work on the sewers of Worces¬ 
ter? A. — I have, considerable. 

Q. — And observed the water that flows through the sewers ? A. — 
Yes, sir. 

Q. — To what extent, and on what occasions? A. — Oh, well, I 
am tapping them all the time : more than one a week on an average, 
taking the year round, I think. 

Q. — What do you say about the the appearance of the water that 
flows through the sewers? A. —If there has been no rain for a few 
da}’S, it is very clear in some localities. 

Q. — How does the water running in the lateral sewers usually 
look? A. — If there has been no surface-water running into them, 
in some portions of the city it is very clear. In other portions, 
where there are manufacturing establishments which turn in their 
dyestuffs, and shoe-shops that turn in their blacking, etc., of course 
it is colored. 

Q. _Where there is only sewage from houses emptied into them, 

what is the condition of the water? A. —It is very clear indeed. 
In some localities, if you stood at a man-hole and looked down, 
you would think it was clean enough to drink, as far as clearness is 
concerned. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Any scent to it? A. — I presume 
there is. 

Q. _Don’t you know whether there is or not? A. — We get a 

smell from the sewers worse than the water,—the gases from the 


232 


sewer. In some localities we do not get but very little of that. They 
ventilate the sewer in Main Street, and in some other streets. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Is the water clear throughout the city? 
A. — Some of it is dark-colored. 

Q. —When the drains carry mainly house-sewage, how is it? A. 

— Some of it is perfectly clear. 

Q. — And where it is otherwise, it is where mills empty in? A. 

— Yes, sir. There is a felt-factory where they use blacking, and, I 
suppose, other stuff, the same as shoe-shops. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —How do } r ou account for the fact 
that the water in the sewers is clear? A .-—I don’t understand it 
mj’self, unless it is because there is so much water running in from 
the springs. There are a number of springs on the hills above Main 
Street that drain into the sewer, and that water makes it clear. 

Q. —You say, that on looking down through a man-hole, the water 
appears perfectly clear? A. — It is, if there has not been any sur¬ 
face-water running in for a few daj’s. 


Cross-Examination. 


rc j ,, - ••* f . . * 


Q . (By Mr. Flagg.)— Looks clear enough to drink, you say? 
A. — Yes, sir : } t ou look down ten or twelve feet, and it is perfectly 
clear. 

Q. — Have } T ou ever made a mistake, and drank it? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — How do you avoid that mistake? A. — I ain’t dry about 
that time. ■ i ■ 

Q. — There is an odor about it, you say? A. — I presume so: I 
don’t know whether the odor comes from the sewer or the water. 
There are gases in the sewer. 

Q. — Do you know that fresh sewage is not so offensive as sewage 
that is older? That it decomposes in a fewda} r s? A. —I don’t 
know what difference there is. Perhaps it is more concentrated. 

Q .—The description you gave of Mill Brook started somewhere 
about 1828, I understand? A .—Before that time. That was the 
time the first canal-boat came up, if I am not mistaken. 

Q . — You spoke of some sewers that emptied into Mill Brook from 
Thomas Street? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q . — Do you mean to say they emptied in there in 1828? A. _ 

Yes, sir. 

Q. — Mr. Harrington testified yesterday that he built the Thomas- 
street sewer in 1853 or ’54? A. — Yes, sir : that was built after the 
stone sewer had been in a good mail}" } r ears. 

Q .—Describe that. A. — It was a common stone sewer, two 
feet square, stoned up at the sides, and covered over with flat stones. 

Q. — What was its purpose ? A. — To take off the water from 
Main Street. 


233 


Q* — Not to take off the sewage of water-closets and house-refuse? 
A. — I don’t know what there was in it. I have been in that sewer 
a good many times. 

Q • —- What was the purpose of the School-street sewer? A. — That 
was to take the water from the street. 

Q • — But not the sewage from privies? A. I don’t know: I 
never have been into that. 

Q-—Do you know how r long Worcester made a business of carting 
off cesspool matter? A. —I can’t tell you how man} 7 :years ago it was 
begun. 

Q- — Is it not true, that, until a few years, th a t has been done on a 
large scale ? A. — It has been done more or less ever since the catch- 
basins were built. Of course they fill up, and have.to be cleaned out. 

Q. —I mean cesspool matter from the different houses? A. — No, 
sir : from the street, —the wash from the street. 

Q. — How have the}’ got rid of the cesspool matter from the differ- 
ent houses in Worcester? A. — Oh, there are cesspools built all over 
the city now. Some of them enter the sewer, of course. There are 
underground cesspools in some localities. There are three cesspools 
connected with some houses, one after another, at the present time. 

Q. — Is it not true, that, within a few years, that has been done 
away with? A. — It has been a number of years since they began. 
Since the sewer was put in, all have entered it that could ; but of 
course there are a good many that have not entered it yet. 

Q. — Do you know of any sewers that were constructed to 1851? 
A. —I do. 

Q. — Mr. Harrington put the first sewers into the streets, didn’t he? 
A. —I don’t know. 

Q. —Before that, whatever sewers were constructed were built for 
the purpose of taking merely the storm-water, — surface-water,— 
were they not? A. — There were brick sewers put in before that. 
There was one connected with the Lincoln House that went down into 
the meadow, and of course the drainage found its way into Mill Brook. 

Q. — You spoke of fish in Mill Brook. Are there any fish in it 
now ? A. — I don’t know ; I have not fished there of late.. 

Q. — Do you know the quantity of sewage flowing into Mill Brook? 
A. — No, I don’t know. 

Q. —The State Board of Health, on p. 119 of their Report of this 
year, state it to be 3,000,000 gallons a day. Do you know the ordi¬ 
nary dry-w r eather flow of Mill Brook? A. — I do not. 

Q. _The State Board of Health state its ordinary flow at 3,500,000 

gallons. Now if 3,000,000 gallons of sewage are put into 3,500,000 
gallons of water, its effect would be to pollute the water, would it not? 

Mr. Goulding. The State Board of Health do not make any such 

statement, I think. 


234 


A. — Of course it would not be so good as pure water. There is 
no question about that. 

Q. — What is the condition of Mill Brook in its ordinary flow now 
as compared with what it was in those early days to which you have 
referred, with reference to the purity of the water? A. — Of course 
the water is colored by reason of the fact that there are so many more 
manufacturing establishments : double, treble. 

Q. —There is more sewage, is there not? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —You spoke of Mill Brook draining all the estates on its border, 
and of Blackstone River draining all the estates on its border. What 
did you mean by that ? A. — The privies used to stand over the brook 
all along down, and the drainage from the houses used to run down 
into the brook. All the estates that bordered on the brook could get 
in there with their sewage, and did so years ago all through that 
region. 

TESTIMONY OF E. B. STODDARD, Mayor of Worcester. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — How long have }’ou lived in Worcester? 
A. —I went to Worcester to live in September, 1847. 

Q. — Where were }T>u born? A. —I was born in Upton, about 
four miles from Farnum’s Village, which is on this stream. 

Q. —You have always been familiar with the Blackstone River, 
even before you went to Worcester? A. —I have. 

Q. — After you went to Worcester, did you become familiar with 
Mill Brook, and what special reasons, if you have any special reasons, 
have you had to know about it, from that time to the present? A. — 
I studied law in Worcester, was admitted to the bar in 1849, and 
commenced practice there, and had more or less to do with the estates 
on Mill Brook. I had more or less occasion to go to Millbury. Having 
a sister who resided in Millbury, I used to go down there quite fre¬ 
quently. I have a brother-in-law who resides there now ; some of 
my family residing there, and I go there now, and am about the 
stream in a measure. In 1852 I built a house on Pleasant Street, 
and that is a street where there is a sewer. At that time, on the top 
of the hill, or near the top of the hill, was a blind drain. After we 
got down about half-ways, was the stone drain, as I have seen it 
open opposite Dr. Martin’s house, who testified here. I don’t know 
when that was put in ; but, at any rate, Dr. Martin drained his cellar 
into that, because he built his house the same year I did. That 
drain ran down somewhere. Whether it ran down Front Street, or 
not, I cannot tell: I don’t recollect about that. Along about that 
time, I think, they had drains laid down in some of the streets. In 
1856 the Bay State House was built. I know that that drain ran 
into Mill Brook, because I had an interest in the Bay State House.; 


235 


and tliat drain was laid at that time, and there was more or less of 
the sewage got into Mill Brook. Of course, after I went to Worces¬ 
ter, the old canal was abandoned. I recollect the brook when I went 
there: it was a dirty brook, and went round a good deal in the 
meadow. In 1863 I was alderman of the city 7 " of Worcester, and 
then, I think, water was introduced into the city. After the water 
was introduced, we began to talk about the matter of sewage, and 
the drains more especialty. About that time, in 1867, the Act was 
passed by the Legislature giving the city of Worcester a right to 
drain into Mill Brook sewer, giving them all of its rights. Mr. Mer- 
rifield, who owned a large machine-shop in the valley there, found 
that his boilers were injured by the dirty water of Mill Brook. He 
didn’t complain at that time of the sewage, but he came to consult 
me about it; and a suit was brought against Mr. Lombard, who owned 
the machine-shop above him, for putting vitriol and stuff into the 
brook. Mr. Merrifield claimed that it killed the fish, and that was 
one evidence that the chemicals were injurious to his boilers. That 
suit was carried into court, and was decided, and you have the report 
of the decision, which has been referred to by counsel here. 

Q .—You brought that suit? A. —Yes, sir. I was in that case 
with Mr. William Brigham of Boston, who was a brother-in-law of 
Mr. Merrifield. 

Q. — Did you have occasion at that time to investigate the charac¬ 
ter of Mill Brook? A. —Yes, sir. It was a dirty stream, from the 
manufacturing establishments that emptied into it, and also from the 
sewage that was run into the stream at that time. Then afterwards 
I had particular occasion to examine into the matter in 1872 or ’73, 
wdien we built the viaduct, with the Nashua and Worcester Railroad. 
I was on a committee with the railroad to build that, with Mr. Allen 
the engineer. We had to take up a portion of the sewer between 
Foster Street and Franklin Street, and go down there and rebuild it. 
The water was very impure at that time. I have known the stream 
ever since, and of course the water has grown more and more im¬ 
pure, I think, from year to year, not entirely from the fault of the 
sewage, but because manufacturing establishments have increased 
to such an extent. For instance, when Mr. Washburn started in 
Worcester, he began with a small blacksmith’s shop on that stream, 
and now the establishment of Washburn & Moen, the wire-mill at 
the head of Salisbury’s Pond, employs to-day, 1 think, two thousand 
men. The Committee saw that stream the other day, and the water, 
as I looked at it, appeared to me in about the same condition, roily 
and polluted, as it did where the sewer enters the Blackstone River 
at Quinsigamond. At any rate, I had specimens of the water taken 
the next day after the Committee were there at Washburn & Moen’s 


236 


mills, and you can see those specimens. But before the Committee 
came to Worcester, I directed that specimens of the water should be 
taken, all along down the brook, and they were taken ; that is, before 
the recent storm came on. We have them here to show to you. 
Specimens were taken also, I think, from Singletary Brook, and 
from the sewage below. Of course, at the time the Committee were 
there, as we had had a storm, there was an immense quantity of 
water flowing over. I think it was against us, that it was unfortu¬ 
nate for us, that the Committee saw the water when it was at its 
highest stage, because it was turbid. Everybody knows that, with 
such an immense body of water as was flowing at that time, the water 
would look very roily, the same, as everybody knows, even in a 
summer storm, that from an hour’s flow into a trout-brook, or any 
thing of that kind, the water becomes so roily that you cannot fish: 
you have to wait for a day or two before you can do any thing; and 
the Blaekstone River, at that time, looked as much disturbed as it 
would at any time during the year. I was glad that the Committee 
saw it at its height at that time, because it was a good time, as it 
seemed to me, to compare with it Singletary Brook, and what was 
coming in there. 

Now, after 1872 or ’73, when the viaduct was built, the stream 
was used by everybody for manufacturing purposes, and they put in 
what they chose to. I do not know that there is the slightest restric¬ 
tion in that respect. Starting with Washburn & Moen, who put in 
their vitriol and other chemicals that are used in washing their iron, 
and their acids, if they are asked about it, the}' claim that what they 
put in helps purify the sewage of the stream. It is the same way 
with some of the other manufacturers, who put in dyestuffs. At 
Washburn & Moen’s there is a large dyeing establishment, I think. 
That starts with the stream ; and so it goes down. There is a large 
dyeing establishment on Foster Street, where they dye a good deal of 
felting, and things of that sort. There used to be at Fox’s factory, 
when I first went there, a pond, and the sewage went into that, until 
the dam was taken away. The pond of Washburn & Moen at Quin-^ 
sigamond Village has been substantially taken away, because the 
sewage goes under it. 

We start with the proposition which I do not think the counsel on 
the other side can deny. You will find this statement in the case of 
Merrifield against the city of Worcester, and I think it will be borne 
out by any quantity of testimony that we can bring before you. Be¬ 
fore the passage of the Act of 1867, chap. 406, the city and town 
of Worcester had laid out and built sewers in several of the streets, 
which sewers terminated and discharged into the brook, at a point 
above Green Street; and from time immemorial the stream has been 


237 


used by the city and town, and by the inhabitants, for sewage pur¬ 
poses, and numerous private drains have discharged into it. That is 
on p. 509, vol. xii., of Massachusetts Reports. That is what we claim 
to be the condition of affairs now, as a claim of law. We say that 
the manufacturers have a right, an immemorial right, and the people 
of Worcester have a right, to use that stream for business purposes, 
fairly, and may enjoy the free use of it, and that that right extends 
far beyond the right of the mill-owners, who got their rights in 1795 
by statute law. That is one of our claims. 

Then, to come down to the sewage question, and the city entering 
the brook, we claim, under this Act, that we have a right to enter 
Mill Brook, and use it as a sewer, and nobody can deprive us of that 
right; and even this Legislature ought not to deprive us of it, and we 
do not think the}' have the right to. 

Then we come to the point of the remedy. I was led into a slight 
investigation of this subject last November, and I took it up from my 
own stand-point, and made up my mind with regard to it; and before 
I had seen any report from the Commissioners appointed by the 
State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, I made up my mind 
that perhaps some experiments might be tried by the city of Worces¬ 
ter, provided that the people of Millbury didn’t object to trying some 
experiments, and I stated fairly what I thought in regard to it. 

Q. — Inasmuch as the views of former mayors have been put in, 
I will ask you if you have here a statement in writing or print? A. 
— Yes, sir. 

Q. — That w r as a part of your Inaugural Address? A. —Yes, sir. 

“ Situated as this city is, where only a single large stream flows directly to 
the sea, it has, or ought to have, the right to a way of necessity for its sewage 
to flow. 

“ The present controversy in relation to sewage between the city of Worcester 
and some of the towns on the Blackstone River, is one of momentous interest 
and concern. 

“ That stream is like a common passage-way; and no one corporation has 
exclusive ownership in the purity of its waters for manufacturing or culinary 
purposes. Every mill or house situated near its banks has for years contributed 
more or less to defile its waters. The theory that the city of Worcester is respon¬ 
sible in damages as a wrong-doer, because it is obliged of necessity to flow its 
sewage into the only channel which nature has provided, and where, by the 
express terms of a special statute, it is authorized to have such outlet, is not 
reasonable, and can hardly be sustained as good law. 

“The old law of fixtures, for instance, has from time to time received new 
breadths of construction in the decision of the courts, to suit the requirements 
of business. So the unavoidable pollution of such a stream, long used to receive 
the impurities of mills and manufactories before the system of sewage by this 
city was adopted, is a potent reason why the city should be allowed to empty 
its sewage into the only stream which nature has provided to receive and 
remove it. 


238 


“Perhaps a different rule of law will prevail when it is shown that the 
sewage is allowed to accumulate on lands lying upon the stream, thereby cre¬ 
ating a nuisance injurious to public health. The General Court has control of 
questions affecting public health, and can enact laws to have specific nuisances 
abated. 

“In the present case it is not a matter of fact, determined by full investiga¬ 
tion, that any injury to health from effluvia exists in an unusual degree when 
the ponds between Worcester and Millbury are drawn down in the summer 
months; though there are complaints that the health of citizens of Millbury 
is affected when such a condition exists, and the usually flowed lands are 
exposed. 

“To meet these complaints, and any such exigencies as exist more or less in 
other cities or towns of the State, I think a remedy could be applied with some 
reasonable hope of success. 

“ The question of how far the ponds situated near the centre of towns in this 
State should be controlled by their Boards of Health, so as to keep them full of 
water during warm weather in the interest of public health, is one which the 
Commonwealth should investigate at its expense, through the State Board of 
Health. 

“ Entertaining this view, and desiring to urge this consideration before the 
General Court, I go still farther, and recommend, if a general law cannot be 
obtained, that this City Council should petition for authority to so control the 
water in the ponds in Millbury, on or near the Blackstone River, that it shall 
not be drawn down below the raceway of the dams, in order that the low lands 
may be kept flowed from May to November. Such control to be regulated by a 
proper Board, who should order when the waters may be used, and who should 
cause the ponds to be refilled from the flow of the natural stream. 

“My suggestion is to ask for an Act limited to two or three years, with the 
provision that any reasonable damage caused to parties should be paid by the 
State or by the city of Worcester as might seem just. By such an experiment 
the fact could be ascertained whether there are just grounds of complaint of a 
nuisance to public health which could not be remedied without serious expense. 
I make the above suggestions anticipating the fact that mill-owners will object, 
because they may want to use the water in the daytime which collects at night. 

“I do not wish it understood that I think the city is in fact committing any 
nuisance, or is responsible, morally or otherwise, for a condition of things in¬ 
separable from the existence of a large community at this point. In other 
words, this city has a right to exist, and become, from its situation and by its 
enterprise, still larger; with an inalienable right to enjoy light, air, and water, 
with the privilege of drainage added, and that without being subject to pay 
tribute to any one. I only suggest, since the matter is in controversy, that the 
facts may perhaps be ascertained, and possibly a remedy found, if any be needed, 
by a simpler and less expensive method than has hitherto been proposed.” 

I know the land very well where the commission recommend that the 
city should try the experiment of downward filtration. It is on what 
is called Hull Brook. I have been over that a good many times in 
the spring and in the summer. It is very wet land. Of course, in 
order to do any thing, it would have to be very much drained, as 
they recommend the plan. My theory is this: After the dam at 
Fox’s Pond was taken down, — where a good deal of the solid 
material in the sewers used to settle, —the water ran there, so that 


239 


there is no place for it to settle, except as it goes along. The next 
pond is Washburn & Moen’s, at Quinsigamond. That used to col¬ 
lect the sediment and fill up ; and now the sewage, instead of going 
into that pond, is taken below in the drain, where you saw it comes 
up. Then the next settling basin is a little dam which has been built 
by the Burling Mills within a year or two, — a little pond. Below that 
is Mr. Morse’s pond, where the trouble is. Now, I say, in those 
remarks that I have made, that if Mr. Morse’s pond was kept up in 
the summer time, if the city of Worcester had the right to control 
that dam, so as to keep the pond up during the summer, and let it go 
down when the freshets come, or have a sluiceway in their dam, so 
that they could let the sediment out, if there is any, there would be 
no trouble from any bad odor or bad smells. The great trouble, if 
there is any, comes from the flats round Morse’s Pond. When it is 
dry in summer, and those flats are exposed, of course there will be as 
much odor from those flats as there is around any mill-pond. I could 
take you to a dozen ponds around Worcester, in the summer-time, 
where you would smell the same odor. If an}^ gentleman has been in 
the habit of fishing in a mill-pond, and standing on the borders, he 
will know that much effluvium will come up from the soil, where there 
is no sewage. Now, if Mr. Morse’s pond was kept full during the 
summer-time, I think there would be no trouble from any odor from 
that; or if the dam was taken down, and the water allowed to run 
through there, then the sediment would go into the next pond. I 
have made a little plan, which I think might be adopted perhaps to 
advantage ; and that would be to form a receiving basin on the north 
side of Burling Mills pond. There are thirty-five acres there which 
could be used for a basin, where the sediment could collect. If the 
city of Worcester had a chance to try an experiment of that kind, 
and see whether the sediment would settle, it would not be a very 
difficult thing, at certain times in the year, to take it out, so that it 
should not run below. There are two or three places where small 
experiments could be tried, at very limited expense, which I think 
for the time being ought to satisfy the inhabitants of Millbury. 
Sometimes there is a difficulty, in a city government which is chan¬ 
ging from year to year, in carrying out any particular series of experi¬ 
ments. As one mayor comes in, another goes out; the aldermen who 
had charge of the matter go out, and another set come in. If I was 
going to propose any thing, I would have a general law applicable to 
all cities in the Commonwealth, that they might have a right to have 
a commission, who should hold office for two or three years, whose 
duty it should be to look after the sewage, and have the whole con¬ 
trol of sewage and water in those various cities in the Common¬ 
wealth. That is what ought to be done by every city, instead of 


240 


leaving it in the hands of the mayor and aldermen. Of course, they 
do not want all their rights taken away, but that could be arranged. 
If there was such a commission in Worcester, I think they could have 
a chance to try experiments which ought reasonably to satisfy the 
inhabitants of Millbury that the city of Worcester does not desire 
and does not mean to do any thing which would really be detrimen¬ 
tal to the general health of the town of Millbury. I object to, the 
general rumors that are put forth ; as, for instance, it w T as testified 
here the other day in regard to a man by the name of Wilmarth, who 
died at Farnumsville, I think of typhoid pneumonia, that Dr. Gage 
of Worcester said that his death was caused by malaria resulting from 
the sewage of Worcester. That was the statement that was made. 
I took occasion to write to Dr. Gage, night before last, not having an 
opportunity to see him, and asked him if he had made any such state¬ 
ment. I would like to put in his letter, to show that such evidence 
may be cooked, and that it is not true. Dr. Gage writes to me in 
this way: — ,, f 

Worcester, March 15, 1882. 

Hon. E. B. Stoddard. 

r- • • •. *7 '• c .. tA 

Dear Sir, — Your note of this morning is at hand. 

I was called to Farnumsville last Sunday (12th inst.) to see Mr. T. W. Wil¬ 
marth, in consultation with Dr. Maxwell. Mr. Wilmarth was a man about 
sixty-four years of age. and by occupation was superintendent of the cotton- 
mills at Farnum’s. He had been ill about one week, and died, as I was 
informed, early Monday morning. His disease was pneumonia , and was 
undoubtedly caused by an imprudent exposure after taking a warm bath. 

Neither sewage nor malaria nor the polluted river was spoken of by myself 
or any one else during my visit at Farnum’s; and I am confident that no rea¬ 
son exists for supposing them in any way responsible for Mr. Wilmarth’s sick¬ 
ness and death. 

Yours very truly, 

THOMAS H. GAGE. 

The other morning there was a fire in Millbury, and I think they 
telephoned for one of our steamers to go down ; and it went down, 
and did some little service : at least, it played on the fire. I inquired 
of Mr. Brophy, the engineer, to find out what effect the water 
taken from the river had on the steamer, because a fire-steamer is 
veiy sensitive to any polluted water, or any thing that would injure 
it; and Mr. Brophy’s statement is, that he couldn’t see that it in¬ 
jured it, or had the slightest effect upon the machinery of the steamer 
in any way, shape, or form. 

There is one thing which I would like to state here. Midway be¬ 
tween Worcester and Millbury there is an establishment which has 
been brought to ury attention and notice, which I think has a good 
deal to do with the pollution of the Blackstone Kiver, and for which 
the city of Worcester certainly is not in the slightest degree respon- 


241 


sible: it is a rendering establishment , where the refuse is carried 
from the different markets, dead horses, and a variety of things, and 
those substances are rendered there. It is quite a large establish¬ 
ment. They try to keep it clean, so far as odors are concerned; but 
I understand that they have from that establishment a pipe drain 
which runs directly into the Blackstone River, which has nothing to 
do with the sewage of Worcester. They run their refuse into that; 
and, if there had not been such a storm the other da}', I think I 
should have taken the Committee over there. I understand that 
blood and meat and other stuff go into that drain, and then go into 
the Blackstone River. I do not think the city of Worcester is respon¬ 
sible for that. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Is that in the town of Millbury? A. — 
My impression is that it is pretty near the line, —just across the line, 
or right on the border. But I think the putting of that refuse into 
the stream is something that should be looked after, either by Mill¬ 
bury or the city of Worcester, one way or the other, because I think 
it has a good deal of effect upon the stream. 

Q. — (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Is that steam rendering done in 
tight tanks? A. — They are not such tanks as are used in other 
establishments of the same kind, by any means. They carry all the 
steam into earth beds. 

Q. —They do not bum the gas? A. — I think not. There are 
times, when the wind is in a particular direction, that that rendering 
establishment can be smelt for a mile; and I am not surprised that 
the people of Millbury and Burling Mills should smell something 
there which they think comes from that stream. I think we shall 
show you by evidence that it does come from the rendering establish¬ 
ment. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Are you prepared, as the Mayor of 
Worcester, to submit to this Committee any bill asking for any power 
or authority to do any thing that you have not the power or authority 
to do now, in the way of experiment? A. — I have my individual 
opinion, but of course I should not want to make any proposition 
without consulting with the other officers of the city. 

The Chairman. I understand that the power of the mayor of a 
city is limited. 

Witness. Without consultation, I should not want to submit any 
thing. Still, I think, if there was no other way, rather than have 
this experimental system adopted — with the prospect of putting the 
city of Worcester to the expense of five hundred thousand or a million 
dollars, which I do not think for ten years would answer any purpose, 
— until we know something more about it, I should not think there 
would be any harm in giving the city of Worcester, or any town or 


242 


city in the Commonwealth, if the Committee saw fit, after full and 
mature consideration, the right to take land for the purpose of im¬ 
proving the water of their rivers or their sewerage S 3 r stem ; and also 
the right to have the control, through their Board of Health, of any 
dams or ponds situated in such town or city, for a year or two, as I 
have suggested in my address, for the purpose of making the experi¬ 
ment, inasmuch as 3 T ou will find throughout the Commonwealth com¬ 
plaints of this kind. I am informed that the people of Clinton com¬ 
plain of their river. Near Wachusett Mountain the water is drawn 
down from a pond in the summer. A gentleman from Clinton told 
me last Friday, “We are in the same box.” There should be a uni¬ 
form act, or one giving the cit 3 T of Worcester the right to take land 
and the right to control aiy dam between Worcester and Millbuiy for 
two 3 T ears if they see fit to make an experiment in the matter of con¬ 
trolling their sewage. I cannot see what harm there would be in such 
an act; but I can see that it would be very unwise to ask us to adopt 
the plan proposed b 3 * the report of the commission to the State Board 
of Health, and within four months from the passage of the act to 
remedy this difficulty. We could not do it. There would be no use 
in the passage of such a bill: we could not turn round. I should 
have no objection to the appointment of a local commission, although 
a great maiy 7 people in Worcester might object. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (B 3 ’ Mr. Flagg.) —I assume that you are a man familiar with 
Worcester and the Blackstone, and look at this thing as a public- 
spirited man. And now I would like to ask 3 ’ou, if, from all the 
causes of which 3 ’ou speak combined, including sewage, there is not 
such a state of affairs in the river as that something- 0112 -ht to be 
done by somebody? I understood you to sa 3 r there was trouble, and 
something ought to be done by somebod 3 T . A. —Yes, there is 
trouble; and I think that perhaps an inexpensive experiment might 
be tried, and perhaps ought to be tried. But, when the manufac¬ 
turers of Millbury claim that we ought to take care, not only of the 
sewage, but of the pollution of the stream which is caused by the 
manufacturers, I object. 

Q. — I don’t understand that the manufacturers of Millbury do 
that: you have not heard from them. A. — That is what they talk ; 
we get it from them. They say the water comes down there, and 
injures their steam-boilers, etc. ; and that is the chief complaint that 
we hear. The chief trouble comes from them. 

Q . — The chief trouble comes from this Committee now, does it 
not? A. — I am willing to meet the Committee of Millbury fairly; 
but when the Committee of Millbury say, “If you adopt this sys- 


243 


tem of downward filtration, and spend five hundred thousand or a 
million dollars, you have got to paj^ us for the evaporation of the 
water,” it don’t seem to me to be very liberal, and I should not 
expect the people of Worcester to indorse any such statement as 
that. They think they have a right, if their dams give way, to use 
a little of the water above, without having everybody put in a little 
bit of a claim. The} r think they have a right to go into this brook 
and use it, without paying tribute to Caesar ever} 7- time they move. 

Q. (B}’ the Chairman.) —Do you think, from what }’ou hear said 
b} T the citizens of Worcester, that there is a feeling among them that 
some experiments ought to be tried ? Do you think there is a dis¬ 
position favorable to such experiments? A. —I think they would 
leave it to the City Government. I have talked with some of the 
heavy tax-payers there ; and I think there would be a disposition to 
have a reasonable experiment tried, if the city were allowed to try it; 
but to be forced into trying an experiment suggested by engineers, 
who do it simply for the purpose of trjdng an engineering scheme, 
without knowing what the results would be, — I think there w’ould be 
opposition to it. 

Q. —Do you think, as a matter of judgment, that an experiment 
would be tried, if this Committee should report some such bill? I 
don’t want you to infer that they think of doing it, but I want to 
know how near we can get together. A. — I think the City Govern¬ 
ment would. I think that they w r ould like to see if something could 
be done. I have no doubt about it; at least, I should try to help 
them. I want to be fair about this thing. I do not want to injure 
Mr. Morse, w r ho is my friend, or any of the people of Millbury. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —On the whole, you think the time has 
come when something ought to be done about it? A. —I think it 
should be looked to. For instance, I think we should see if we 
could not form another basin there, that would act as compensation 
for the two basins that have been taken away, Fox’s Pond and Wash¬ 
burn & Moen’s Pond; and I would see whether, if we allowed 
the sediment to settle in a basin, or in two basins, and then removed 
it, it would not afford a remedy. If it would, it seems to me that 
that would be a very reasonable remedy ; in* the same way as when 
they talked about filling up the Back Bay, the engineers all said, 
u If you fill up the Back Bay, you must make compensation, so as to 
give the water a chance to run somewhere else.” I think some¬ 
thing of that kind should be tried, but I don’t think the city of 
Worcester should be forced into this scheme. 

Q .—Then I understand your answer to be, that you think the 
time has really come when some movement should really be made in 
that direction? A. — I don’t know why we could not begin just as 


244 


well in this wa } 7 as any. What I mean to say is, that I think the 
city of Worcester, standing upon its rights, is willing, if 3*011 can 
suggest an}' reasonable experiment, without too much expense, to 
take hold of it and try it. I think the city ought to do something, 
and I do not know but what the State ought to say, “ We will try the 
experiment, and see what will be the effect of keeping up a pond full 
in the summer, where there is complaint of malaria and of odors 
when the pond is drained down.” 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) —It would be a pretty dangerous experiment 
for the State to undertake that with regard to one city r , would it not? 
A. — Perhaps it would, but the State has got something to do. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Assuming that something ought to be 
done by somebod}', the State Board of Health have recommended 
certain plans. You speak of authorit}'. Now, in order to cany out 
any of those plans, must you not have a bill something like the one 
proposed by us? A. —It has been so long since your bill was read 
that I have forgotten what its provisions are. 

Q. —You must have a bill of some sort, must you not, to do the 
things you suggest? A. — I say permission; }*our bill compels. M 3 7 
idea is to have a bill framed, and see what that will do. I do not 
think that this legislature, when the } 7 say compel , know what we 
ought to do. I think we better have a chance to see what we can do. 

Q. —In the case of Merrifield against Worcester, what was the 
practical result? A. — Well, so far as that question was concerned, 
I believe they decided that Mr. Lombard — 

Q. — Not the case of Merrifield against Lombard, but the case 
of Merrifield against the city of Worcester. A. — I think the practi¬ 
cal result was that the manufacturers, not the cit}', had the right to 
drain into the stream. 

Q. — Did not the cit } 7 of Worcester make some recompense for the 
damage it was causing him in the wa } 7 of furnishing him some water? 
A. — They did not. Before my administration they took away his 
water-wheel, and had the right to take away his dam. In taking 
away that dam, they had to compensate him, give him other water 
for it; but I do not think it was on account of pollution of the 
stream. 

Q. —The bill he brought was for the pollution of the stream ? A. 
— Well, he would bring a bill large enough to cover every thing. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Were there damages paid for polluting 
Mill Brook? A. —JSTo, sir : no damages for polluting Mill Brook. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —The Act of 1867 was obtained to give the 
city of Worcester the right to use Mill Brook as a sewer, was it not? 
A. — I presume that it was. They did not want to go on with the 
system of sewerage, unless they had an act. It would have been very 


245 


unsafe to stand upon their immemorial use of that stream, without an 
act by which they had a right to alter the brook and straighten it. I 
think there are some parts of the river between Mr. Morse’s mill and 
Burling Mills where the stream should be improved. 

Q •—There must be a bill to enable anybody to do that? A. — 
There ought to be a bill; yes, sir. 

Q •—The manufacturers of Worcester discharge into the sewers, 
do they not? A. —Not entirely. 

Q • —To a certain extent? A. —Yes, sir. I was thinking of that. 
I thought you might ask that question. I take the Washburn & 
Moen establishment. The}^ are not on a lateral sewer ; they are on 
the original stream that has been walled up ; but if the sewerage s} T s- 
tem had been there, they would have the right to put it in. Then 
there are some few persons who have little shops on side streets 
where there are lateral sewers ; but mostly they are on the streams. 

Q. — Tell me about the standing of such plrvsicians as Dr. Joseph 
Bates, and Dr. George Bates, and Dr. Sargent of Worcester. Don’t 
they stand very high in the profession? A. —I think the} T do. I 
think they have a high reputation. I do not wish to make an}' dis¬ 
tinction between them. I should make some difference in my opin¬ 
ion of the men, if it were given. 

Q. —Do you know their opinions on this subject? A. — I don’t 
know the opinions of the three men ; but 1 have that of Dr. Sargent, 
because I went to him and showed him that bottle of water that was 
taken from the gas-works, of which Dr. Sargent is president. I told 
Dr. Sargent, “ I want you to see what your gas company are putting 
into that stream ; there is a bottle of water that was taken from it 
near by the gas-works.” Said he, “ I was not aware it looked like 
that, but,” said he, “there is tar in it, which doesn’t pollute the 
stream any, excepting that it colors it; the tar itself does the sew¬ 
age good. It does not hurt it, as far as health is concerned, a parti¬ 
cle.” Said he, “ They cannot make out any thing against you; I 
don’t believe there is any danger.” Said I, “Thank you, doctor.” 
I asked him to come down here and testify. He said he was so busy 
that he couldn’t. This goes into a brook, and then it purifies itself 
by running through the brook some little distance. There is another 
bottle here that shows it. I never talked with Dr. Joseph Bates, nor 
Dr. George A. Bates. I presume likely they might say there was a 
smell or something of that kind, as some of your witnesses have, and 
I don’t know but other witnesses have. 

Q. — Is it not true that the rendering establishment is now on the 
road in an opposite direction from the tripe factory down by the 
Dorothea Pond? Don’t you know about it? A. —I thought Doro¬ 
thea Pond was a different place. I did not know that it was near 
Dorothea Pond ; I thought it was before you got to Hull Brook. 


246 


Q .—You don’t know wliat I mean, then. The river, when the 
Committee were there, was remarkably high? A. —Very high, I 
should think. 

Q. —And your being glad that they saw it at that height was not 
because we were sorry? A. —No : I heard } r ou were glad. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Mr. Mayor, you spoke of the provisions of 
the bill that has been submitted here, and first in reference to the 
time that was fixed. Would it obviate one of your objections if the 
time, instead of being limited to four months, were enlarged to six 
months, or even a }’ear? A. —Well, of course that would be better ; 
but that is not my idea. I do not think any bill should be passed 
compelling ns, under the investigations which have been made up to 
this time, to do any thing. 

Q. — I wish to take up each one of these points in its order. First, 
in regard to the time. I wish to sa}^ to }*ou that the particular limit 
is not regarded as essential by the petitioners here. Then, second, 
in regard to the general provisions of the Act, } T ou do not understand 
that the bill undertakes to prescribe the mode in which this trouble 
shall be remedied, do you? A. — Not at all; only it says that we 
shall remedy it. 

Q. —Precisel} 7 , but it leaves the city of Worcester to determine 
what mode shall be taken? A. —Oh, yes. 

Q. —Now, on the other point, which I assume is the principal one 
of difference that remains, — as to whether or not the city r should be 
required to do this, or should be permitted to do it: the very remark 
that you made in reference to the transitoriness of the City Govern¬ 
ment would be particularly applicable here, would it not? That is to 
sa}r, supposing a permissive act were passed, the present City Govern¬ 
ment might be favorably inclined to it, but another government might 
take a very different view, might it not? A. — Yes, they might do 
it; but there is no City Government that has taken hold of this sub¬ 
ject ; they have not even made any preparations in this case at all, 
until this City Government came in, that I am aware of. The subject 
has not been considered : the\~ have not broached the subject; they 
have not considered it; they have not done any thing; but if this 
City Government should go on and make experiments, and get infor¬ 
mation, it might have an effect upon another Cit} T Government. 

Q. —You have no reason for assuming that the present City Gov¬ 
ernment would be ready to incur any considerable expense for this, 
have you? A. — Well, when you speak of u considerable expense,” 
that is a thing no man can answer, only I think that while the present 
City Government might not see their way clear to do any thing which 
would be of advantage to Mr. Morse and the town of Millbury and 
the city of Worcester, with regard to stopping these complaints, they 
would be very happy to take hold of it, 


247 


Q. —Has there been any indication by the City Government that 
the cit}* of Worcester would make any considerable appropriations of 
their own accord, to remedy this difficulty? A. —There has been no 
action by the City Government. This matter is simply left to the 
Sewer Committee. So far as that is concerned, I have recommended 
in the appropriations which are to be made, something, I do not 
know how much, for sewer construction, quite a large amount; but 
there has been no other action taken. I saw the piece that was pub¬ 
lished the other cla}* in the “ Sunday Herald” or “ Sunday Globe,” 
which I understood was written by a man who lives in East Douglas — 

Q • —Let me say that I saw the article, and have it here. I have 
no knowledge myself as to where it originated, but I want to read it, 
and then ask 3*011 a question in connection with it. This article, I 
ma 3 r saj T , I cut from the “ Globe.” It is dated March 1 , 1882 : — 

To the Editor of The Globe: — 

Among the matters of more than local interest likely to engage the attention 
of the present legislature, is that of the pollution of the Blackstone ltiver by 
the sewage of the city of Worcester. 

The joint committee on public health now have the subject under considera¬ 
tion for a second time, and a hearing is now pending before them. Your regu¬ 
lar Worcester correspondent has from time to time presented to the public what 
purport to be the views taken by the City Government of the respective rights 
of the city and of the inhabitants of the Blackstone valley; and from the whole 
tenor of his letters it is inferable that the authorities having the matter in 
charge on the part of the city, after careful consideration and due inquiry, have 
concluded: — 

First, that the city has the legal right to empty its sewage into the river, 
regardless of consequences; 

Second, that no nuisance is thereby created; 

Third, that if there is, or hereafter may be, the inhabitants of the valley 
have no remedy; and 

Fourth, That the city will stand upon its legal rights, and pay no regard to 
the wants and wishes of the people below on the stream. 

The first and fourth of these propositions are maintained for the purpose of 
quieting the fears of timid tax-payers, who otherwise, for prudential reasons 
only, might investigate for themselves, and compel the authorities to act before 
a great and additional expense was imposed upon them; the second and third, 
for the purpose of preventing any expression by a large class of conscientious 
and fair-minded people, who otherwise would exert a controlling influence in 
governing the action of the city, and for the purpose of quieting and suppress¬ 
ing the natural impulse of all good citizens to do justice and equity without 
regard to strict legal rights. 

These propositions are undoubtedly inspired by the city authorities, and are 
indorsed by nearly all of the representatives of the city in the legislature, and 
were they advanced in good faith, and honestly entertained, would be fair mat¬ 
ters for argument only; but, if not so advanced and entertained, are open to 
grave criticism. The people of Worcester undoubtedly believe them to be hon¬ 
estly entertained, and an effort is being made to satisfy the legislature of their 
truth, and of the sincerity of the city’s representatives in their advocacy of 
them, and, unless the correspondent of “ The Sunday Herald” has been misin- 


248 


formed, some measure of success lias been attained; for lie writes to that paper, 
under date of Feb. 19, “ The subject lias been talked up considerable already 
with the members of the legislature, and there isn’t that fear there was last 
winter.” 

It is the belief of the writer that the people of Worcester, including your 
regular correspondent, by their authorities and most of their representatives, 
are being deceived; for it is almost an open secret here, that the opinion of the 
expert employed by the city coincides with the opinion of the experts employed 
by the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, both as to the practicability 
of the scheme presented by the Board, and also as to its necessity; and this 
opinion is well known to the city authorities, but has been concealed from the 
people, and their expert is now employed simply as a critic of the plan recom¬ 
mended, and is being held in readiness to criticise any other plan that may be 
suggested. 

It is also reasonably certain that the City Government, in executive session, 
has arrived at the conclusion that there is grave doubt as to the right of the 
city to continue its nuisance, but also have had before them and have consid¬ 
ered a plan presented by a citizen of Worcester, whereby the nuisance may be 
abated. 

The plan alluded to has received the cordial indorsement of four at least of 
the aldermen; and its originator, having full faith in its efficacy, has presented 
it in detail, describing his process fully, explaining the details of the construc¬ 
tion of his purification works, and the places in which they are to be erected, 
and their cost, both with reference to the works themselves and on account of 
land to be taken for them. 

It certainly is to the credit of any citizen of Worcester, that he should recog¬ 
nize the evil, and devise a way to overcome it; and if it is creditable to the City 
Government to exhort him to secrecy, and command his silence, and to suppress 
all knowledge of it, it certainly is not commendable for them to deceive their 
own community with reference to it, and upon a scale of municipal magnifi¬ 
cence play the unbecoming and deceptive game of bluff with the surrounding 
towns below them in their own county, and with the general public. * 

Now I call your attention to that portion of this communication 
which refers to a plan, which, it is said, has been presented to the 
aldermen. Is there any foundation for that statement? A. —It is 
untrue, the statement that there has been one word said about this 
matter in executive session of the Board of Aldermen. I never heard 
of it. 

Q. — That was hardly my question. My question is, whether it 
is true that any plan has been presented? A .—I am going to 
answer it. About a month ago, a man by the name of Fuller came 
into my office with a box about two feet long, with wire sieves in it. 
He said he had discovered a system by which the water of the Black- 
stone could be filtered, and wanted I should look at it. Fie was a 
man whom I knew very well, and I said, “ I hope you have found a 
remedy for the pollution of the water in big rivers like the Black- 
stone.” He said he thought it could be done. He wanted to know 
if I had any objection to his showing it to members of the City Gov¬ 
ernment. I said, “Not the slightest, or anybody else you cboose 


249 


to.” I have seen him once since, I think, three or four daj’s ago, and 
he said, “ Don’t jxm think I had better come down to the committee, 
and show my box-filtering scheme? ” I said I did not think it would 
do any good. That is all I have heard of it. If he showed it to any 
of the aldermen, he showed it to them as individuals. Although I 
am a member of the Sewer Committee, it has never been brought 
before us. I should not be surprised if he had shown it to two, or 
three, or four, aldermen, but there has been no action of any kind 
taken upon it. 

Q. —Is he a citizen of Worcester? A. —He is a citizen of 
Worcester. 

Q. — Is that the only plan that has been proposed by a citizen of 
Worcester, or any board? A. —Yes, sir: I don’t know of any 
other. 

Q. — Has not Mr. Ames, a representative in the legislature from 
Worcester, submitted some plan? A. — I have not seen a drawing 
or figure put on paper, in any wa}\ Mr. Ames has talked about a 
plan, and said, I think, if he had thirty or forty acres of land where 
he could have a basin, and the water was allowed to run over stones, 
or something of the kind, it would purify itself. 

Q. —That is the plan that I w T as told was referred to in this com¬ 
munication, a plan submitted by Mr. Ames? A. —There is nothing 
to it. 

Q .—Will 3 'ou state to the Committee what has been said by Mr. 
Ames to the Board, or any members of it? A. —Mr. Ames has not 
been before the Board. 

Q. — What do you mean b}’ saj'ing, then, that Mr. Ames has had 
some talk about it? A. — He has talked with individuals, saying 
that he thought, if we were obliged to do any thing, if we could form 
a basin where this w T ater could be aerated, it would remedy the diffi¬ 
culties complained of. 

Q .—Did he express any opinion as to the expense of such a 
method ? A. — Well, so far as I ever heard of Mr. Ames’s talk, I 
think he said that it would not cost very much ; not more than a few 
thousand dollars, or something like that. 

Q. — About how many did he say ? A. — I can’t tell you any sum ; 
but I should think that he represented that it would not cost over 
twenty or thirty thousand dollars, anyway. But that was mere talk 
or discussion, as I understand it: I don’t understand it to have been 
any formal proposition. 

Q. — Not before the City Government; but he has suggested in 
private conversation that such a plan as that would remedy the diffi¬ 
culty? A. — He has talked about it. I have heard him talk about 
it in the office, when they were discussing that question. 


250 


Q. — He thought that for twenty or thirty thousand dollars the 
trouble could be remedied? A. —Yes, sir. Now, I don’t say that I 
have stated the sum correctly; but it was not a large sum. Mr. 
Ames is here: you can call him, and he will tell you what he said. 

Q. —Was that plan or suggestion presented b3 7 him, to 3’our knowl¬ 
edge, to different members of the Board? A. —Not at all. I have 
not known of its being presented. He ma} 7 have talked with individ¬ 
ual members of the Board, but he never came before the Board with 
any thing of that kind. 

Q. —Would 3*ou be willing,-Mr. Ma3*or, to have an act drawn in 
this form, authorizing the city of Worcester to appoint a commission 
on the subject of purifying or taking care of the sewage, and then 
give to that commission discretionaiy power as to what should be 
done? A. —No, sir, I should not. I think we can take care of our 
own business in the city of Worcester. 

Q. — I understood 3*ou to advocate the appointment of a commis¬ 
sion, on the ground that the City Council would be changing from 
3*ear to 3*ear? A. — I thought you meant an outside commission. 

Q. —No, I mean a commission of citizens of Worcester. A .— 
I have no objection to that, any more than to a police commission, 
or any thing of that kind. 

Q. —Please see if 3*011 take in the scope of my question. M3" 
question would be this: whether or not 3^011 would be satisfied to have 
a bill passed, authorizing the City Government to appoint a commis¬ 
sion, and then give the commission full power as to what should be 
done, — let them have authorty to take land, and incur such expense 
as would be necessar3*. A. — I would rather, and I think it would 
be better, if an act was drawn in that wa3*, to submit the question of 
its adoption to the voters of the city, to see if they would approve 
of the act; the same as, when Roxbury was annexed to Boston, the 
people of the two cities voted upon it. Then it would be a relief to 
the chief officers of the Cty Government. 

Q —Then it would appear that 3*011 do not want an3* act requiring 
the City Government of Worcester to do this ? A. — No, sir : not in 
four months. 

Q. —I have already said that the limit of time is not material. 
A. — I should object to it, if it was to compel us to do it in two 
years. 

Q • — Do you think there is any indication, in any action that the 
City Government of Worcester has taken, of its own motion, without 
something imperative in the act, that they would assume the expense, 

which might be considerable, of any purifying of sewage? A. _ 

What 3 T ou might consider a considerable expense, might be more 
than we would be willing to incur. We might disagree about it. If 
you will name your sum — 


251 




Q. —Well, say two or three hundred thousand dollars. A. — I do 
not think that we ought to be compelled to assume that expense. I 
think that the City Government would be perfectly willing to assume 
an expense of thirty, forty, or fifty thousand dollars, if they thought 
they could provide any remedy which would satisfy the people of 
Millbury, and answer the purpose. For instance, there is Mr. Stock- 
well, a gentleman from Sutton, who was senator from the Millbury 
District two or three years ago. He says this thing could be reme¬ 
died easily at an expense ol twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars, 
so that the people of Millbury ought not to have any complaint to 
make. 

Q •—Well, you do not understand, Mr. Mayor, that anybody 
wants the city to spend one cent more than is necessary? A. —No, 
I don’t think they do. 

Q. —But you would agree to this, that something should be done 
at once to remedy the evil? A. —I cannot tell. You start in by 
saying that you want Worcester to consent to spend one or two hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars. What are you going to do? The remedy I 
might propose to-day, so as to take the sewage of the manufacturing 
establishments, might not apply. You want Worcester to spend three 
or four hundred thousand dollars. I do not think the time has arrived 
yet when the city of Worcester ought to be compelled to go into a 
large experimental operation, attended with great expense, to divert 
its sewage. 

Q. — When do you think the time will come? A. —Well, I should 
hope that we should do what was right about it. 

Q. — I haven’t any doubt that you would, personally, Mr. Mayor; 
but your remarks this morning are the first indication that we have 
had from anybody from Worcester that looks to a practical solution of 
this difficulty. A. —Well, my remarks have been open to the public 
since the first of January. It is not any new scheme; it is a thing 
that I have thought of myself, that is all. If all the engineers should 
come in, and say this is entirely impracticable, I should have to yield 
to what they say ; but I should look at it as a common-sense matter. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —I do not want the Committee should 
misunderstand your relation to this matter in an}' way, and I want 
them to know how I stand. I will ask you whether you have come 
here as a representative of the city to request this Committee to con¬ 
sent to a bill imposing an}' obligation upon the city of Worcester to 
make any other disposition of its sewage than it does at present? A. 
— I have not. 

Q. — When you speak of this scheme which you have suggested in 
your inaugural, I do not understand that the City Government of 
Worcester, or any organized opinion of Worcester, has at all ap- 


252 


proved of it? A. —No, sir: it is just the same as Mayor Chapin’s 
and Mayor Verry’s remarks, that were put into the case originally to 
start with. 

The Chairman. I think the Committee understand all that. 
What I suppose the Committee would like to know is, how far there 
is a sentiment in Worcester that is willing to do any thing. I do 
not understand the petitioners to ask for any thing ; they seem to 
want some reasonable assurance that the city will do something; I 
do not understand that they ask that it shall necessarily spend forty 
or fifty thousand dollars. What we want to understand is, what 
response they would be likely to get in that direction from the city of 
Worcester. We would like to have you agree to a bill of some sort. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) —Is there, within 3*0ur knowledge, any 
probabilit3 r that the city^ of Worcester and the petitioners could come 
to an3 T approximate arrangement in regard to this matter? If so, it 
would save the Committee some labor. A. —We cannot give the 
mill-owners pure water for their steam-boilers, or for dyeing their 
cloths ; nobody can do it; and when this legislature undertakes to 
make the city of Worcester do it, I do not believe it can be done; I 
do not believe it is possible. 

Q. (B3 t Mr. Morse.) —Has the City’ Government of Worcester, at 
any time, appointed airy committee to confer with the representatives 
of Millbury and the other places, with reference to an} 7 plan for the 
purification of the water? A .—I have never heard that the} 7 have 
at all. 

Q. — Have you seen any thing in the attitude of the Committee of 
Millbury, or of the other persons who represent themselves, who 
claim to be aggrieved here, which indicates any unwillingness on 
their part to confer with the representatives of Worcester? A .— 
Not the slightest. 

Q .—You are on friendly terms? A. — Certainly. Mr. Morse is 
my friend. We are perfectly friendly to them. I think that Mr. 
Morse and I could talk this matter over, and, if he has not got it too 
much on his brain, I think we should not disagree verv much. 

Mr. Smith. I wish you would get together, and put your agreement 
in writing. 

The Chairman. It would help this Committee out. 

Witness. A man at the head of a city cannot always do what he 
would like to do as an individual. 

Mr. Morse. Perhaps the mayor might be a little relieved by this 
Committee. 

Witness. I do not want to mislead anybody. Perhaps I have 
said a little more than I ought to have said here to-day. 

Q- — (By Dr. Harris.) — You don’t suppose, I take it, that this 


253 


Committee have any thing to clo with the manufacturers? There is 
no petition from the manufacturers here. A. — Not as manufacturers ; 
but then you find the manufacturers coming in here and making com¬ 
plaint. For instance, Mr. Simpson came in here, saying that they 
have lost five per cent, on some of their woollen goods because of the 
impurity of the water. When I inquire of the manufacturers, they 
say that they lost five per cent, the same }’ear, for some other reason. 
The vendees take advantage of the hard times, when goods go down. 
That is about the amount of that stoiy, in my opinion. 


TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM E. WORTHEN. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Where do you live? A. —New-York 
City. 

Q. —What is your business? A. — Civil engineer. 

Q. — Have 3011 ever paid any particular attention to engineering in 
connection with sewers and sewerage? If so, please state what your 
experience has been. A. — I have. I have been a good deal con¬ 
nected with the construction of sewers and with the application of 
plumbing to houses ; and, when the Metropolitan Board of Health was 
organized in New York, I was appointed the engineer of that Metro¬ 
politan Board. I continued in that otfice of sanitary engineer of the 
Metropolitan Board of Health as long as there was a Metropolitan 
Board of Health,—four 3'ears. All that time all the complaints of 
sewerage, drainage, and ventilation were referred to me for orders for 
structural remed3 T ; and at that time I probably issued many thousands 
of orders. 

Q. — How extensive was the sewerage system that was under 3^0ur 
charge? A. — We had the whole city of New York, the city of 
Brooklyn, Staten Island, Long Island, including Jamaica, and up the 
river to Peekskill, including Peekskill; taking the whole of what was 
called the Metropolitan District. 

Q . — Are you familiar with the literature with regard to sewage 
and its disposal ? A. — I am. 

Q. — Have you ever been abroad ? A. — I have. 

Q. — Seen an3” of the sewerage works abroad ? A. — I have been in 
the sewers of Paris; I have seen the sewers of London, and their 
system of utilizing sewmge at Barking, 011 the Westminster side of the 
river. 

Q. — Have you read Col. Waring’s Report to the State Board of 
Health ? A. — I have. 

Q. — Have 3’ou been on the premises, and examined the river? A. 
— I have : 3'es, sir. 

Q. —What is your opinion of this whole plan of disposing of sew- 


254 


age proposed by the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity? 
A. — I do not agree with it. 

Q. — I want to ask you whether, in your opinion, faecal matter from 
Worcester would reach Millbury in the Blackstone River? A. —Not 
to pollute it: no, sir. 

Q. —Now, won’t you explain why? A. —This is the basis on 
which I work: 1 get from Mr. Allen, that in the lowest run of water 
about 40 gallons of water pass into the sewer per day, for each 
inhabitant; not counting an}' thing that goes into it from springs, as 
one gentleman testified here. I also understand from him that the 
lowest run of Mill Brook exceeds 3 , 000,000 gallons a day, which 
would be 75 gallons each for the population of 40,000 using the 
sewer. That would be 115 gallons of water for each person. A gal¬ 
lon of water weighs 8.3 pounds ; but I call it 8 pounds. Eight times 
115 = 920 pounds. The amount of ejections, taking urine and every 
thing, that passes through an average person, would not be over three 
pounds a day, of which, of hard matter there would not be perhaps 
more than four ounces. There are 900 pounds, say, of water, and 
3 pounds of ejections. One-third of one per cent, is what goes through 
an individual; and there is only about one-sixth of that which is hard 
matter. That is all there is to it. That is taking Mill Brook alone, 
as it discharges down there at Quinsigamond. It there mixes with a. 
larger proportion of water, I suppose, — I do not know how much 
more; but, anyway, it comes in such a diluted state that there can 
be nothing from the water-closets, or merely human ejections, that 
can be detected in any way down there. I doubt if even chloride of 
sodium would disclose the presence of urine. 

Q. —Is there any such condition of that river, as far as you could 
discover from an inspection of it, and from the evidence of plants, 
animal life, etc., which in your opinion requires the adoption of any 
such scheme at Worcester as has been proposed? A. —At pres¬ 
ent, no. 

Q. — What evidences did you see, when you were there, with 
regard to the pollution of the stream, or the purity of the river? 
A. — Dr. Folsom stated here yesterday, I think, that these analyses 
did not discover any thing. They are not reliable; but there is a 
pretty reliable test, which is adopted in France, and which I think is 
the standard, or should be the standard, and that is the quantity 
of oxygen in the water. It is shown very conclusively that the 
quantity of oxygen that is in the water is the standard of the purity 
of the water for these purposes. As the water first comes out of 
the sewer there is very little oxygen. The result is, there are few 
or no organisms of any sort. As soon as it is mixed with a little 
more air, the lower organisms, that show no chlorophyl, first begin 


255 


to develop ; then plants begin to appear; and you go on in that 
way, and as you go down stream you can test the amount of pol¬ 
lution by the flora and fauna of the stream. It has been stated 
here that the sewage that comes down there invigorates the plants 
in that pond, and that they grow to such an extent as to fill it up. 
If that is so, in my view of it, that is evidence that the sewage is 
not unhealthy, because it promotes the growth of plants. You will 
find that where sewage is old and decaj’ed it is death all around 
. it. The plants are dead ; the animals are dead ; there is no life in 
it. It is not until it becomes aerated that it begins to be good, 
until, at the end, when you get trout and water-cress, the water 
would be pretty safe to drink : then that is very pure water. But 
the other is not injurious to vegetable life, and would not be to us, 
up to a certain line ; then we could come in veiy well. The evidence 
shows that fish died there, below the pond. They must have come 
from somewhere ; and when I was down there, the other day, I saw 
a mink coming across, and a mink is pretty good evidence that there 
are fish. It seems to me that that pond is not at present injurious 
through its pollution. 

Q. — Where did you see that mink ? A. — Just above that woollen- 
mill. 

Q. — Burling Mills? A. —Yes, sir, Burling Mills. 

Q. — What would be the effect of taking this sewage out on those 
seventy-five acres, with reference to stench? A. —If they took that 
sewage and concentrated it on seventy-five acres, the result would be 
that the smell would be worse than where it comes out of the brook 
diluted. It would be localized. It would not go down to Millbury, 
but would be localized where this stuff is used. The more concen¬ 
trated the sewage, the greater will be the smell. We talk about 
“ intermittent downward filtration.” I think it is better to omit the 
prefix, and say it is filtration. It is nothing but a filter. We make, 
an earth filter, — that is the whole of it, — and when that filter gets 
clogged we move to another. A filter clogs, not from the quantity of 
water put upon it: it is from the amount of turbidness, and the foreign 
matter held in the water. I think that Dr. Folsom was wrong in 
estimating the capacity of a filter by the acre ; it should be estimated 
upon the degree of the turbidness of the water. That sewer-water 
will take no more land for a filter with the water of Mill Brook in it 
than without it; not a bit. 

Q._Do 3 T ou know how that stream, Mill Brook, compares with 

the outlets of the sewers in English cities? I see the report says that 
this sewage is twice as dilute as the average of fifty English cities. 

A. _I have not compared it; and, personally, I have never seen the 

outcome of those places in England. 


256 


Q. — Is there, in your judgment, any such settled condition of 
the science and high art of sewage disposal, as to render it to any de¬ 
gree certain that such a scheme as has been proposed by the experts 
of the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, would effectuate 
the result desired? A. — If they expect to get rid of the smell, no. 
They are going to localize more smell up there at Quinsigamond than 
there is now, because the sewage will be more concentrated. The 
first idea in purifying sewage is to mix it with water; if 3 T ou can mix 
it enough, it is done. In New York, we throw it into the river, and 
have no more trouble with it. If you mix it with a certain amount 
of water, then it becomes suitable for the food of the lower orders of 
animals ; and the more 3*011 put in, the nearer it comes to what we 
call good water. 

Q .—There is another branch of the subject to which I will call 
your attention. What is the effect of drawing off a pond on the 
question of polluting the air? A. — I have had a great deal to do 
with it. I have heard the testimony in the case, that the smell was 
offensive. One doctor testified that it had the smell of a privy. You 
perceive that at Quinsigamond the proportion is very small, — about 
one-twentieth of one per cent., and it grows very small down there. 
I think the nose is as good a thing to detect a smell as anj* other 
instrument 3*011 can have, and if you have an educated nose, 3*011 can 
pick out smells veiy closed*. Now, the smell which the3 T refer to 
as a privy smell is the result of the deca3* of some of those lower 
orders of animals, which I have tried a number of times, and found 
always the same result. I put in the works at Long Island, which 
are supplied b3* a well, and the water never gets above fifty-two 
degrees ; general^ it is about fifty. In winter it is about fort3 r -eiglit. 
It varies about four degrees. On that water, at one time, there 
formed a scum, like the frog-spittle which you see on those cold 
springs that you find under a hill. I wanted to find out what it was, 
and took it to a man to analyze. He analyzed it, and told me he 
could find nothing different from what he detected in the water itself. 
If you took it in your hand, it was perfect^* smooth and impalpable. 
I bottled it and kept it a week, and when I opened it the smell of a 
privy, as most people would call it, was very perceptible. I had the 
same thing examined at Fort Richmond, and with the same result. 
This spongilla Jluviatalis that 3*011 get in Boston is the same thing. 
When alive it has a cucumber smell, but when it is dead it has a very 
disagreeable smell. When the water settles down, these animals 
die, and when the3” do die the3* emit a very offensive smell. There is 
another thing also to be said, that I think is an acknowledged prin¬ 
ciple in sanitary engineering, or whatever 3*011 may call it. Yon 
Pettenkoffer, of Vienna, who, I suppose, is an authority, says that 




\ 


257 

there is more danger to a community from the lowering of the level 
of water than from any thing else. He says that in Vienna they can 
trace almost all their epidemics to lowering the strata of the water. 
I think 3’ou will find, almost always, that where a pond is lowered, 
whether there is any pollution in it or no, they have these low fevers, 
malaria. I think it is almost invariable. 

Q • —What do you think would be the result of taking down those 
dams, and letting that stream flow? A. — I am not so certain about 
that; I have not made sufficient examination to be able to say that 
that is a remedy. I should want to make a careful examination 
before I should feel authorized in advising so great a change as that, 
and paying for all those mill-powers. I have only seen this water in 
colder weather. I should like to see the stream through the summer 
months, and see exactly how it was. The basis of m3’ opinion I have 
given 3’ou. I want to sa3’ that I should infinitely prefer to tr3’ the 
mayor’s remedy first. There is another thing which I think ought to 
be done, if 3011 should take Ma3’or Stoddard’s plan. There should 
be a deep sluice to eveiy dam, so that in times of high water it could 
be raised, and the pond washed out, with an3 T sediment that might be 
in it, and so on down. 

Q. (B3’ Mr. Smith.) — Can 3’ou give us any reason wly that scum 
to which 3’ou referred should rise upon the water; whether it was 
from pollution or otherwise? A. — No, sir: there is no pollution 
whatever. This water is cool spring water, and you will see it upon 
any other spring water 3’ou ever saw. 

Q. — Have 3 T ou any theoiy as to its cause? A. —Yes, sir. Per¬ 
haps light and air were mixed. I do not know how it operates, but 
I have never found cool water without it. You will find, in Newton 
and Waltham, which are both spring supplies, that in the coolest 
water there comes up a kind of jelly form, which, when it detaches 
itself, as it does sometimes, passes down with the current. They 
have to keep a rack to prevent it from getting into the pipes. As 
soon as it is laid upon the ground, it begins to create a smell. I do 
not know what it arises from, but the analyst told me that the anaty- 
sis of this stuff was exactly the same as the analysis of the water; 
and he was the analyst of the Board of Health, a man of good 
standing. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (B3’ Mr. Morse.) —I want to call your attention for a moment 
to some figures that you gave. I understood 3’ou to state that three 
pounds of faecal matter are discharged, on the average, from each 
person? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Now, assuming that there are forty thousand persons in 
Worcester who use the sewers, it would follow that one hundred and 


258 


twenty thousand pounds a day of faecal matter are discharged? 
A. —Yes, sir, including urine and all. 

Q. —That would be sixty tons of sew'age a day? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —And three hundred and sixty-five days in the year would give 
as the total, twenty-one thousand nine hundred tons of faecal matter? 
A. — If the multiplication is right, that is correct, sir. I cannot do 
that in my head. 

Q. —Twenty-one thousand nine hundred tons of faecal matter are 
discharged into the Blackstone River at the mouth of the sewer? 
A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —You would not consider it a surprising fact if a considerable 
part of that great mass should find its way into the ponds and above 
the dams below Worcester, would 3’ou? A. — Not a bit, sir. 

Q. — And it would not surprise }’ou that it should be found in the 
mills, and in the various places where the water is used? A .—It 
would surprise me very much ; the percentage is small. You see, 
3 t ou are giving the mass, and do not give the percentage. It would 
surprise me if I should find one-twentieth of one per cent, of hard 
matter, or one-third of one per cent of urine. I said I doubted if 
chloride of sodium could be detected, which would show the presence 
of urine. 

Q. — Suppose that reputable persons, whose word was to be taken, 
assured you that fecal matter was found in the mills, or stuff that 
appeared to be composed in part of fecal matter: you would readily 
believe it came from Worcester, w y ould you not? A. —I should not. 
I should want to go myself and see it. 

Q. —You would not take their word? A. — I would not. 

Q. —Your faith in your theory is so strong, I suppose? A. — It 
is so strong. I do not know whether any of you are conversant with 
the workings of a water-closet; but if you would go down when some 
party is in the closet, and look at the outflow, you would be utterly 
astonished to see how little fecal matter shows there. I have never 
been able to see it, where the water-closet sjstem was in operation. 
Occasionally, where a privy is located right over a stream, the matter 
which drops preserves its form, and goes floating down some dis¬ 
tance ; but, so far as my experience goes with water-closets, I never 
saw that in my life. I never saw it when I have looked at the mouth 
of a sewer, where the ejections were merety water-closet discharges. 
The matter was all broken up. So far as drinking the water is con¬ 
cerned, you do not drink it, because you know what it is, but people 
who are dry do not notice it. 

Q. —I want to see how far you do or do not agree with other au¬ 
thorities on this subject. You are familiar, I assume, with all the 
literature of the subject, as, indeed, you have stated? A. — Not 


259 


with all. There is no branch of the profession that I have not inves¬ 
tigated. 

Q • — I assume that } t ou are largely acquainted with it. I call 
your attention to the language of the State Board of Health, in their 
report of 1873 . They say, on p. 96 , — 

“ It is a wide-spread popular idea, that no matter how much impurity is dis¬ 
charged into a running stream, yet, by flowing a dozen miles or so, the stream 
will for all practical purposes free itself from the impurity, and become fit for 
use, even as a source of water-supply. It has been alleged'tliat the organic 
matter is almost completely oxidized by the oxygen of the air, and by that dis¬ 
solved in the water, and that this oxidizing action is very much increased if 
the water be agitated by passing over weirs or natural falls. This feeling has 
gained considerable currency, and has been held by some men who are looked 
to as authorities, such as Dr. Miller, Dr. Odling, and Dr. Letlieby. It is, how¬ 
ever, unsupported by direct proof; in fact, the experimental evidence leads us 
to the contrary opinion. The Rivers Pollution Commission made this question 
the subject of direct investigation, and showed very conclusively that the 
commonly-received opinion was erroneous. They chose localities on several 
streams where the rivers, in each instance, flowed for almost a dozen miles 
without receiving additional pollution, and determined the amount of organic 
matter destroyed. They also made mixtures of ordinary sewage with different 
quantities of water, and in these artificial mixtures, which were by various 
devices exposed to the free action of the oxygen of the air, they determined 
the rate at which the organic matter disappeared. This they did, by estimating 
from time to time the organic nitrogen and carbon contained in the solution; 
also by observing the rate at which the dissolved oxygen disappeared. As a 
result of these experiments, they affirm that, — 

“ ‘It is evident, that, so far from sewage mixed with twenty times its volume 
of water being oxidized during a flow of ten or twelve miles, scarcely two-thirds 
of it would be so destroyed in a flow of one hundred and sixty-eight miles, at 
the rate of a mile per hour, or after the lapse of a week. In fact, whether we 
examine the organic pollution of a river at different points of its flow, or the 
rate of disappearance of the organic matter of sewage when the latter is mixed 
with fresh water, and violently agitated in contact with air, or, finally, the rate 
at which dissolved oxygen disappears in water polluted with five per cent of 
sewage, we are led in each case to the inevitable conclusion that the oxidation 
of the organic matter in sewage proceeds with extreme slowness, even when the 
sewage is mixed with a large volume of unpolluted water, and that it is impossi¬ 
ble to say how far such water must flow before the sewage-matter becomes thor¬ 
oughly oxidized. It ivill be safe to infer, however, from the above results, that 
there is no river in the United Kingdom long enough to effect the destruction of 
sewage by oxidation.’ 

“These results confirm the opinion arrived at from theoretical considerations, 
and expressed by Sir Benjamin Brodie in his evidence, given before the former 
Rivers Pollution Commission (First Report, River Tha i.es, vol. ii.. Minutes of 
Evidence, p. 49). His evidence was to the following effect: — 

“ ‘ I should say that it is simply impossible, that the oxidizing power acting 
on sewage, running in mixture with water over a distance of any length, is 
sufficient to remove its noxious quality. I presume that the sewage can only 
come in contact with oxygen from the oxygen contained in the water, and also 
from the oxygen on the surface of the water; and we are aware that oxygen 


260 


does not exercise any rapidly oxidizing power on organic matter. I believe 
that an infinitesimally small quantity of decaying matter is able to produce an 
injurious effect upon health. Therefore, if a large proportion of organic mat¬ 
ter was removed by the process of oxidation, the quantity left might be quite 
sufficient to be injurious to health. With regard to the oxidation, we know 
that to destroy organic matter the most powerful oxidizing agents are required; 
we must boil it with nitric acid and chloric acid, and the most perfect chemical 
agents. To think to get rid of organic matter by exposure to the air for a short 
time is absurd.’ ” 

Now, to begin with, you are familiar with the Report of the Rivers 
Pollution Commission ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —Do you agree with their conclusions? A. —Not at all. 

Q. — Do you agree with the State Board of Health? A. —I agree 
that the stream purifies it within a certain distance. 

Q. —The State Board of Health express the opinion that that idea 
is erroneous. A. — I do not agree with the Board of Health. 

Q .—Then you agree with the popular opinion? A. — I agree 
with the popular opinion. Not as the popular opinion, because I 
have good authority which I can give y’ou on the other side. 

Q. — You agree with what the State Board of Health calls an erro¬ 
neous popular opinion? A. — Yes, sir. I believe there is a time 
w T hen every thing turns over. Let me give one illustration. The 
water in the aquarium at Croyden has been there some four years, 
without any change whatever. It is merely pumped up and aerated ; 
and those fish are fat, they swim about there, are in perfect health, 
and in good order and condition. That is, mere aeration has made 
that water perfectly good. The fish there do better than they* do in 
the aquarium at Brighton, where they’ pump water from the sea 
every day, and do not give sufficient aeration. At Croyden they 
get an excess of oxygen in the water, and the result is, the fish there 
are healthy; while at the Brighton aquarium, where they have a 
fresh supply’ of water every day T , they r are not healthy’. 

Q. — I understand your position to be, that sewage may with 
safety be drained into a running stream? A. —I think so, sir. 

Q. — And that no system is necessary’ to prevent this stream from 
pollution? A. —If the stream is large enough, no, none. 

Q. —According to what you understand of this case, you consider 
that the Blackstone River is large enough? A .—At the present 
time, y r es. 

Q. — You think, then, that the draining of the sewage of Worces¬ 
ter into the stream does not pollute that stream ? A. — I refer, now, 
to the amount that comes from house use, and all that. I don’t know 
about the other. Yes: I mean to say that the quantity that enters 
the Blackstone River to-day, with what I understand to be the flow of 
the river, is not sufficient to pollute it. 




\ 


261 

Q.—Will it, in your judgment, in the natural course of things, be 
a source of pollution? A. —It will. 

Q. — Can you give any judgment as to the time? A. —That I am 
not prepared to answer, because I have not made that part a study. 
I have only* considered its present condition. 

Q • — Do you think it would be reasonable to take some precautions 
in advance to prevent pollution? A. —I think some experiments 
ought to be made, because I do not believe a system has yet been 
invented to purify sewage. That is my opinion from what I read. 
Here is a little periodical that brings up the question in a new form. 
It is “The Cosmos” of December, 1881, and January, 1882. That 
describes a system which the man has tried for twenty* years ; and, if 
it could be applied on a large scale, it would answer all your questions 
exactly^, with very small expense, and without offence. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Is it in French? A. —Yes, it is in 
French. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —Will you state, in brief, what it is? A. — 
In brief, it is this : He applies it particularly to houses ; for instance, 
the house sewerage, say*, of twenty people. He states that the sew¬ 
erage is to discharge into a tank, say of a cubic metre capacity, which 
is perfectly tight: it is closed with a water-seal at each end. As the 
water goes in, it displaces the other water, which flows out. There 
is a certain lapse of time, according to the size of the tank, in the 
course of which the water becomes purified. He says it then flows 
out with hardly any color, and no deposit. He says another thing : 
that the more water y*ou put in with it, the better it works. He say*s, 
in this article, that it has been in use now some twent3 r y*ears, pri¬ 
vate^, and has been successful all the wa3 T through ; and he makes a 
little experiment in the laboratory* to show how it works, in part. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —What do 3 T ou think of that plan, sir? A. — 
I think I would try it, if I had a chance. 

Q. — To go back for one moment to the same question which I 
asked 3*011 before, about the amount of pollution. The present popu¬ 
lation of Worcester I understand to be, in round numbers, sixty 
thousand, of which, in round numbers, forty thousand use the sewers. 
I understand, further, that the increase of population, according to 
the State Board of Health report, has been twenty per cent, in five 
years. Taking those figures as a basis, can 3*011 express any* opinion 
as to the time when, in your judgment, the sewage from the city of 
Worcester would be a source of injury to the water of the stream? 

A. —That is to say, you mean, what is the injury? 

Q. — You have given an account of the condition of things to-day*, 
with forty thousand, say, draining there. How many, do you think, 
could safely be added? A. — If twenty thousand more were added, 
I should want something done. I should do something now. 


262 


Q. — Then, if the whole population of Worcester to-day were to 
discharge into the sewer, you would consider it a proper case for 
some action? A. — For some action, yes, sir: I think I should do 
that. 

Q. — Let me ask whether your attention has been called specially 
to what plan you would recommend the city to adopt? A. —Not 
an}’: I have not been shown any plan. They have had no plan, so 
far as I have heard, as the mayor states. I have been thinking over 
the matter myself; and what I should try first, I think, would be the 
simple plan of keeping the ponds up, and, at the time of storms, clean 
them out by the flow of water. 

Q. — Have 3*011 an}* doubt, that, with a reasonable opportunity to do 
it, you could carry out some practicable plan which would improve 
the condition of things very much there? A. — I should like to 
make one or two experiments first. I think I should w*ant to try this 
de Moura’s plan first. If you would give me a chance to experiment, 
I think I could. But there are a number of things come in there : 
for instance, the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity recom¬ 
mend pumping; Col. Waring does away with pumping. Certainly, 
as far as that is concerned, if we could do away with pumping, it 
w*ould be a gain. But I am not able to say myself, from any levels, 
or any thing taken there, whether that could be done. It would be 
well to avoid that, if it could be avoided. 

Q. — You would agree with us in this, that it would be wise for 
the city of Worcester to get an opportunity to try such a plan by 
appropriate legislation ? A. — Certainly. 

Q. —And if the city were allowed a reasonable time to experi¬ 
ment and adopt a plan, have you any doubt that some plan could 
be adopted which would very much improve the present condition 
of things? A. —No, sir: if you gave them the right to take 
property, and any thing of that sort. They could not do any thing 
there without authority to take property for the purpose : it may be 
mill-power or land. I should not be able to state any thing about 
that. 

Q. (By Mr. Smith.) — What would you consider a reasonable time 
for making experiments, such as you would contemplate ? A. — Well, 
if you would give them the privilege of having that dam kept up, 
that would start one thing. That would not be very expensive, any¬ 
way ; and it ought not to add much to the expense if they had the 
right to put in a sluice there, with which they could wash out that 
pond. That thing would last quite a little time. If this stuff that 
comes down, partly from the dirt of the streets, and partly from the 
manufactories, could be washed out at the time of freshets, there 
would not be so much offence in that pond. That would purify the 


/ 


263 

river very considerably, and at very little expense. How long that 
would last, I am not prepared to state. 

Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) — You spoke about the purification of 
this sewage on land making a good deal of smell? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q’ Have you examined any other places where that has been 
done, and found that to be true? A. — Yes, sir: at Barking, the 
smell comes from a pretty large surface of country. The dilution is 
very large there. The smell is the same that }’ou get at the mouth 
of a sewer, —just about that sweet smell that comes from a sink-spout, 
a sort of sickish, sweet odor, the same as you get in the sewers of 
Paris. You could not mistake it for any thing else. You know the 
water runs through ditches there. It is first put on one side into one 
ditch, and then into another; and, as it comes along through that dis¬ 
trict, 3'ou smell that same smell. You see, they do not concentrate 
the sewage at all: every thing goes in. The London sewage, j t ou 
know, is all pumped up, and goes down below. That smell goes over 
quite a little district. 

Q. — That is over territory where vegetation is grown ? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —Do you think it possible to detect the 
same smell at Millbury that 3*011 get down at the mouth of the sewer? 
A. — I do. You get that same smell which I call sewer-smell. It is 
different from any other smell. You get that smell down below the 
woollen-mill. You cannot mistake that smell after you have got used 
to it. You know what the sewer-smell is : it is a distinct smell. It 
does not belong to faecal matter or animal matter, or any thing of 
that sort. It is an entirety distinct smell. 

Q. (By Dr. Hodgkins.) — I would like to ask what effect the large 
amount of filth that runs in from the street has upon the purity of the 
water? A. — I suppose, absolutely, there is a great deal more ma¬ 
nure, horse-dung, goes into the sewers from the streets than there is 
of sewage from houses. I should think so, and it is said by some 
English writers that it is as much or more. There must be a great 
deal of that get into the sewers, and eveiy thing that is thrown into 
the street gets in in that way. 

Q. —What is 3’our opinion in regard to allowing the street wash¬ 
ings to empty into sewers? A. — I should not allow it. The city 
of Worcester should keep its streets clean, and let as little of an3’ 
thing of that sort get into the sewers as possible. The storm-water 
should go in, but not the droppings of horses. That would keep out 
one cause of pollution. The mere sand and grit that come in fill up 
the stream down below somewhat, but do not pollute it. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —How do you account for the prevalence 
of the same sewer-smell down as far as Millbury that you get at the 



264 


mouth of the sewer, in view of the vast amount of water that comes 
in? A. —It is not quite so strong. You will find that all that kind 
of smell is a very pervading smell. It comes from a very small 
amount. All that goes in from the streets helps to make that smell. 

Q. (B} r Mr. Hodgkins.) —What is the effect of that odor upon 
the health of people ? A. — I have been particular in my inquiries 
about that. In all mj T experience in connection with sewers I have 
never found a man who was in ill-health from working in sewers. 

Q. (By the Chairman.) —How long were you in the sewers of 
Paris? A. —Perhaps two hours. 

Q. —How long do the workmen stay in them? A. —There they 
work any time. In New York, if a plumber makes a sewer-connec¬ 
tion with the street, he has to go into the sewer to mend the pipe ; and 
some of our old sewers are very bad. When I was in the Board of 
Health, I knew all that were bad. The old sewers in Canal Street and 
Amity Street are extremely bad sewers, but I have never known of a 
person who worked in sewers who contracted any disease. I do not 
know vfhy it is so, but it is so. I have found another thing:' that, 
however abnormal it may be, all scavengers are healthy. I never saw 
a scavenger connected with our board — they are all licensed — who 
was not a large, hearty man. They seem to run in that particular 
line. 

Mr. Morse. That is the kind of men w r ho are ordinarily selected 
for the business. 

Witness. That is a mistake, — a very great mistake. I think it 
is very well established. This is out of my line, and I guess I will 
not go on. I was going to the doctors’ part of it. 

Q. (B}^ Mr. Morse.) —Your remark suggests a question I forgot. 
As I understand you, the sewers of New York discharge into the river? 
A. —Yes, sir, the late sewers are carried out into the river. The old 
sewers ran into the slips. 

Q •—Is it not a fact, that, owing to the enormous current that 
comes down that river, and the wash of the tide, there is no trouble 
in the city from the sewage? but has not very great trouble been found 
with reference to the sewage and filth of all kinds being washed up on 
the beaches, — so much so that complaint of the insalubrity of the 
sewers has been made there? A. — No, sir. Our’trouble there has 
been from this : all our garbage is carried down by boats, and is 
supposed to be deposited pretty far out; but, if a fellow gets a chance, 
he dumps it anywhere; and then it comes up on the beaches. I do 
not know that they have had any trouble from the sewage. 

Q. — Has not a plan of intercepting sewers been proposed in New 
York? A. — Yes, sir: I proposed one myself. 

Q. — What was the occasion for it? A. — At that time all the 


265 


/ 


sewers debouched into the slips ; and my idea was, to carr}’ them down 
below, — to have a reservoir, as it were, and let the sewage go out 
with the outgoing tide ; but it was never carried out. I go on the 
slips very often now, but not so much as I used to; and I find there 
is very little trouble now. 

Q • — You say there is no plan in contemplation now of intercepting 
sewers? A .—Not that I know of. All the late sewers have been 
built on the plan of throwing the mouth of the sewer clear out to the 
end of the pier. The old sewers run into the slips. Canal-street 
sewer runs into a slip, and Fulton-street sewer runs into a slip. 

Q. (Ity Dr. Hodgkins.) —They all open under water, I suppose? 
A. — It is not necessary, but they do. 

Q. (By Dr. Wilson.) —Did you see Singletary Brook? A. —No, 
sir: I only went down as far as Mr. Morse’s. I went down to see 
Mr. Morse, but he was not at home. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — You were treated, however, with great 
courtesy there? A. — Oh, yes, sir. 


TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. ALLEN. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You are city engineer of Worcester? 
A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you been so? A. —This is my fifth year. 

Q. — What experience have y’ou had as a civil engineer, in connec¬ 
tion with sewers and other similar structures? A. —Well, an ex¬ 
perience that has extended over about fifteen years. 

Q. —What works have you had charge of in engineering? A .—• 
I have had charge of a good many. I built the railroad viaduct in 
Worcester, and the one at the lunatic hospital: 1 had charge of a good 
deal of work for the city of Worcester before I was city engineer. 

Q .—Built large sewers extensively, as well as smaller ones? A. 
— Yes, sir, I built the largest sewers that the city has. 

Q. —I want 3’ou to state to the Committee what part, in your judg¬ 
ment, of the outla} 7 that has been made upon the sewerage-works in 
Worcester would have to be practically abandoned if the plan recom¬ 
mended by the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charit}- were 
adopted. A. —You refer, I suppose, to the sewers that would have 
to be given up in the side streets? 

Q. —All those sewers that would have to be given up, or practi¬ 
cally given up, such as would not have been constructed if this plan 
had been adopted to begin with. A. —Probably a hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars. 

Q. —I want to ask you how long, in your judgment, it would take, 
if you were to go to work with reasonable attention to economy, to 


266 


construct the works necessary to put into operation the plan of down¬ 
ward intermittent filtration, as stated in the Report of the State 
Board of Health, Lunac}’, and Charity? A. —It would take at least 
three seasons. We have no details at all of the work, nothing except 
a general idea of what is wanted. It would take at least one season 
to work those up carefully, and two seasons for the work. 

Q. — Have 3 T ou any suggestions to make with regard to either of 
the plans proposed, as to any of the difficulties to be encountered in 
canning them out? A. — Well, I don’t know exactly what you 
mean. 

Q. —Whether you have any criticisms to make upon the plans, or 
any suggestions? A. —One suggestion that I have to make is, that, 
in estimating the cost, the fact that quite a large portion of our 
sewerage-works would have to be abandoned, ought, of course, to be 
taken into consideration. That I have already mentioned. I would 
like to sa}', in connection with the matter of the dilution of the sew¬ 
age, that the sewage of the city r of Worcester (I take this from the 
Report of the Commission) “is twice as dilute as fifty-four Eng¬ 
lish cities and towns where irrigation has been resorted to.” After 
it enters Mill Brook, it is diluted with a daily flow of water of from 
2 , 000,000 (which is a very low estimate as the minimum) to 40 , 000 ,- 
000 gallons. When it reaches the Blackstone, it is still further 
diluted by a daily flow of from 7 , 000,000 to 300 , 000,000 gallons of 
water. I state that to give some idea of the amount of water flowing 
in the stream. I see, by the Report of the State Board of Health, 
that they estimate the minimum flow of the stream at 750,000 
gallons. I think that is a mistake. That undoubtedly refers to the 
Piedmont-district sewer. 

Q. —Were these flows given by 3 r ou or your assistant to those 
parties? A. —Yes, sir: the figures were all obtained from us; and 
we sent them to New York in a mass, and undoubtedly it was an 
error in putting them in the report in that way. 

Q. —Can it be possible that the minimum flow of Mill Brook is 
only 750,000 gallons a day? A. —No, sir : that refers to the Pied¬ 
mont district. 

Q. — Have you spoken to Dr. Walcott about it? A. —Yes, sir, I 
spoke to Dr. Walcott; and he said it was undoubtedly a mistake. 

Q. —The lowest flow, 3'ou think, is about 2 , 000,000 gallons? A. 
— Yes, sir: that is a very low estimate indeed. We have, by our 
gaugings at Lincoln Square, which is above the point where the 
sewers enter Mill Brook, nothing that shows less than 4 , 000,000 
gallons ; but then, these gaugings were probably taken at a time 
when the water was not at its very lowest. Of course, that 2 , 000,000 
gallons is full stream ; not the amount of sewage that is turned into 
it, but all the stream together. 


267 


Q* —Mr. Taylor, your assistant, has taken these gaugings? A .— 
Yes, sir: he is here, and can show them to 3 T ou. There is another 
point to which I did not call attention, in relation to this, which is 
also mentioned in the report; and that is, that there are twent} T -six 
woollen and cotton mills, besides wire-works, iron-manufactories, and 
two or three shambles, on the stream. What I want to call attention 
to, in relation to this, is the fact that quite a large portion of them 
are out of this territory. 

Q. — Read your list, and state where they are. A. —There is a 
wire-mill at South Worcester (I do not refer to the Quinsigamond 
wire-mill: there is a small one at South Worcester) ; the Crompton 
Carpet Company ; Hopeville Woollen Mill; Curtis & Marble Iron 
Works; and the Trowbridgeville Shoddy Mill, on the stream in 
Worcester. 

Q. —On the Blackstone above the sewage? At —Yes, sir. And 
then we have Stoneville. There are two mills there, — one a small 
tape-mill and the other a cotton-mill. 

Q. — What town are they in? A .—Those are in Auburn. Then 
we have, on a branch of the stream, known as Ram’s-horn Brook, 
two woollen-mills that are not down upon this list. They are in 
Auburn.- 

Q. —Do you know their names? A. — I don’t know their names. 
The mill at Jamesville; John A. Hunt’s mill; the Darling mill; the 
Ashworth & Jones mill, in Worcester. The stream bends around, 
and comes into Worcester again. Then we have Smith’s mill, Olio’s 
mill, Pierce’s mill, what is called the Chappel mill, E. D. Tha} r er’s 
Bottomly Mill, Kent’s mill, Mann & Marshall’s mill, — all in 
Leicester. 

Q .—Those are on Kettle Brook, and other tributaries of the 
Blackstone River? A. —Yes, sir, those are on tributaries of the 
river. 

Q. —Do you know where Blackstone River begins to be called by 
that name? A. —Well, I always supposed that it was called 
“Blackstone River” after Mill Brook entered it. It is called 
“Middle River” from the point where Kettle Brook and Tatnuck 
Brook come together. 

Q. —Now go on with the other streams. A. — There are on 
Tatnuck Brook — 

Q. —That comes into Kettle Brook or Middle River at New 
Worcester? A. —At New Worcester. I commence with A. G. 
Coe’s wrench-shop, Loring Coe’s wrench-shop, Loring Coe’s forge- 
shop, the woollen-mill at Charles Ballard’s privilege, and the woollen- 
mill at the A. L. Whiting privilege, I think it is. I don’t know but 
those are the old privileges. Those are all in Worcester. 


268 


Q. —Any above Worcester on that stream? A. —No, sir. 

Q. —Then take Mill Brook. A. — The first establishment on Mill 
Brook proper is S. Warren & Sons: it isn’t a mill, it is a tannery. 
With the exception of Washburn & Moen’s, I am speaking now of 
mills outside of the city proper, — S. Warren & Sons’ tanner}’, A. C. 
Butterick’s mill. There are three mills above the city ; and then there 
are innumerable iron-works and dye-houses, and other industries that 
get into the stream in the city. 

Q. — Is there an}^ other point? I don’t desire to occupy the Com¬ 
mittee’s time by going over things that have alread}? - been gone over. 
A. —I don’t know that there is. 

Q. —You have taken some specimens of river-water at various 
points, have you? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —They are in those bottles, are they? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Were they taken at the times and places indicated on the 
bottles ? A. — They were. 

Q. — Have }’ou got at:y washings from filters of the Cochituate 
water? A. — Yes, sir : I obtained some yesterday. 

Q. — Will }’ou produce them? A. — There is a sample of Cochit¬ 
uate, after running through a filter one hour. 

Q. — Where was that obtained ? A. — That was obtained on Tre- 
mont Street here. There is one after the filter had run about fifteen 
minutes. 

Mr. Morse. We don’t object to the purification of Cochituate 
water. 

Witness. It vras simply to show that other water as well as Mill 
Brook will show impurities when filtered. 

Q • — That model of the city of Worcester was made under your 
supervision? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—What is the vertical and horizontal scale? A. — The hori¬ 
zontal scale is three hundred feet to the inch, and the vertical, fifty. 

Q. — It is an exact model, with that correction ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q■ — If you have any special specimens that you desire to show 
the Committee, you can show them, and tell where they were taken. 
A. — Mayor Stoddard, in his testimony, referred to specimens taken 

from Mill Brook below Washburn & Moen’s establishment, the dav 

' %/ 

after the Committee were there. These were all taken before the 
storm. This was taken above the point where any sewage comes 
into it. Of course it has settled now. There is no sewage whatever, 
except, possibly, something that Washburn & Moen may have put in 
themselves. What I mean is, no public sewage. 

Q •—Give us one taken down by Cambridge Street, after it has 
got all the sewage, and before it has been polluted by the Blackstone 
River. A. — Here are two. This one was taken out of Mill 


269 


Brook at Cambridge Street, where Quinsigamond-avenue sewer comes 
in, Feb. 23 of this year, at 3.30 p.m. 

Q' — That was before the storm, and before the Committee were 
there? A. — Yes, sir ; and it was taken just above the point where 
the brook comes into the sewer. That [showing another bottle] is a 
specimen from the gas-house. Then, here is a specimen that was 
taken at the outlet of the big sewer, Feb. 23, at 3.45 p.m. 

Q • — If you have them, show us some specimens from Burling 
Mills. A. — There is a specimen of water taken at Mr. Morse’s 
dam, Feb. 24, 3 p.m., when the water was running over the roll¬ 
way eight inches deep. He showed a specimen taken when the 
water was running over ten inches. That was taken, of course, 
before the storm. 

Q . — Have you got any specimen from the Burling Mills? A. — 
This specimen was taken at the Burling-mill Pond, which is above 
Mr. Morse’s, Feb. 23, 4.15 p.m., when the water was running about 
two inches deep over the dam. 

Q. — Do you know about what quantity of water was going by 
Morse’s Mill the day the Committee were down there? A. —Well, 
probabty in the vicinity of between five and six hundred million gallons 
in twenty-four hours. There is a specimen of the river-water below 
the Cordis Mills, just below Millbury, taken Feb. 24, at 4 p.m. 
This is a specimen of Singletary-brook water, taken Feb. 24, at 3.15 
p.m. This is another specimen of Singletary-brook water, taken 
March 3, at 4.30 p.m. That was after the storm. Here is a speci¬ 
men of water taken from the brook at the Worcester & Nashua 
freight-yard, which is just below the Washburn & Moen works, before 
any of the sewage enters the brook, Feb. 23, at 2.45 p.m. Here is 
a specimen of water from Kettle Brook, taken below Hunt’s Mill, 
Feb. 25, at 3.30 p.m. And also one taken below the Washburn & 
Moen wire-works, at Quinsigamond Village, where the stream 
crosses the highway, at what is called the iron bridge, Feb. 23, at 
4 p.m. That is about half a mile below the point where all our 
sewage comes into the river. This is a specimen of Salisbury-pond 
water, taken Feb. 23, 1882, at 2.30 p.m., above the Washburn & 
Moen wire-works. That is where they cut ice. 

Q. _Where is Hunt’s Mill? A. — Hunt’s Mill is on Kettle 

Brook. It is the last mill before you get to the Leicester line. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Do I understand that you took all these 

samples yourself? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Did you take that Singletary-brook sample March 3, your¬ 
self? A. — I beg pardon : I did not take that one. My assistant 




2T0 


took that one. I can’t say as to that. My assistant is here. I had 
forgotten I didn’t take that. I took the others myself. 

Q. — I understand that samples taken at different times will show 
a different character? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .—These show only the state of the river at that particular 
time? A. — Certainly. 

Q .—Taken at other times, they might appear different ? A .— 
Certainty: of course. 

Q .—I do not understand } T ou to say that you prefer Blackstone- 
river water to Cochituate ? A. — I have never thought that I did : 
no, sir. 

Q. —And these mills that you speak of—some of them are very 
small? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — Some of them two-set mills? A. — I think very likely. 

Q. (B} r the Chairman.) — How many mills are there on the Black- 
stone above the sewerage system of Worcester ? A. — We had twent 3 r - 
six reported in the report. Then there were two on the Ram’s-horn 
stream that I didn’t get in nry report. 

Q. —Those are factories, not saw-mills, or any thing of that kind? 
A. —No, sir. They are all manufacturing establishments. 

Q. (By Mr. Morse.) —I want to know whether you have given 
any attention to the preparation of any plan for the purification of 
the sewage? A. —Well, not to any extent: no, sir. 

Q. —You haven’t yourself considered what plan 3 ’ou would recom¬ 
mend? A. — No, sir, I have not. I made all these surveys, or 
rather had them made, superintended them, for the State Board ; but 
so far as developing any plan is concerned, that I have not done. 

Q. — Are you prepared to say that the plan recommended by the 
State Board is not the best plan, under the circumstances? A. — I 
can say this, Mr. Morse, that I consider any plan, that with the 
others, as being entirely experimental. 

Q. — I did not ask that question ; but m 3 ’ point was, whether 3 T ou 
were prepared, from such examination as 3 ’ou have made, to sa 3 ’ that 
the plan recommended by the State Board was not a wise plan? A. 
— I have not considered it a wise plan for the cit 3 r to adopt. I can 
say that conscientious^’. 

Q. — Are 3 ’ou prepared to say that the plan recommended by Col. 
Waring is not a wise plan? A. — I am, most decidedly. 

Q . —But you are not prepared to say what would be a wise plan? 
A. —No, sir, I am not. 

Q. —You have not considered that question? A. — No, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — Will you finish the list of manufac¬ 
tories which you began to read? A .—These are not all on Mill 
Brook, but some of them are on tributaries that run into Mill Brook. 




271 


The Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Co., wire-works; Richardson 
Manufacturing Co., iron-works; Ames Plow Co., iron-works; 
Wetherbee, Rugg, & Richardson, iron-works; N. A. Lombard, iron¬ 
works; Wheeler Foundry, iron-works; Johnson, Bye, & Co., iron¬ 
works; Pond’s Iron-works; H. C. Fish & Co., iron-works; 
Merrifield’s buildings, devoted principally to the manufacture of iron 
in its different branches; Rice, Barton, & Fales, iron-works and 
foundry; Worcester Felting Co.; Wheeler Foundiy Co., Mechanics 
Street, iron ; Knowles’s Iron Works ; Crompton Loom Works ; two 
smaller foundries, that I do not know the names of; Colvin’s Foun¬ 
dry at junction; Colvin’s Foundry on Gold Street; Earl & Jones 
Foundry; Adriatic Mills, woollen; Fox Mills, woollen; Worcester 
Copperas Works, two mills; Worcester Gas Works; besides three 
or four large iron-works at what we call the Worcester Junction ; and 
then, there are other smaller concerns that I have not got. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Those all empty their sewage into Mill- 
brook sewer, or into sewers that empty into Mill Brook? Yes, sir. 

Q. — And, in addition to that pollution, there are the sewers 
emptying into it in the city? A. —Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF LUCIEN A. TAYLOR. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You are assistant engineer of Worces¬ 
ter? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — How long have you been in the engineer’s office in Worcester? 
A. — Fifteen years. 

Q .—Were all these gaugings of the flow of Mill Brook and the 
sewers which are mentioned in the report of the State Board of 
Health, Lunacy, and Charity made by you, and furnished to them? 
A. — I believe they were. 

Q. — Now, I want to call your attention to this statement of theirs : 
that the average daily flow, diy-weather flow, at Cambridge Street, 
exclusive of sewage, for four months of the year, may be stated at 
about 3,500,000 gallons, and its minimum daily flow at 750,000 gal¬ 
lons. Can that be true? A. — I don’t think that can be true; at 
least, there have been no gaugings to show an}^ such thing. That is a 
self-assumption. The lowest gaugings I have taken were in 1871, in 
June, Jul}", and August, at Lincoln Square, possibly in September. 
They cover a period of about four months. Where the drainage dis¬ 
trict is stated in the report as eight square miles, it is 7£. Those 
gaugings show something over 4,000,000 gallons. I don’t remem¬ 
ber the exact figures. That is the average. In 1875 I took some 
gaugings, and I think the average was about 8,000,000. 

Q. —I don’t care to go into the average flow, or to question this 


272 


report, except to find what the minimum daily flow of Mill Brook is. 
A. — The lowest flow that I have ever recorded I have not at hand 
now. 

Q. —Do you know how much it was? A. — I can’t say ; that is, 
it would be governed, perhaps largely, by Washburn & Moen. If 
they were not running their mills, and the gates were shut down, it 
might be a small quantity for a short period of time, twenty-four or 
twelve hours, or some limited period of time ; but the average flow 
for a month could not be any such quantity as stated there, I am posi¬ 
tive. In 1875 I took gaugings in August and September, and the 
lowest amount was 8,700,000 gallons. 

Q. — Is there any other point to which you have given special 
attention? A. — I don’t know of any thing very special. 

Q. — I suppose you agree with Mr. Allen in what he has said in re¬ 
gard to the time it would take to construct the works necessaiy to 
put the downward filtration scheme into operation? A. — Yes, sir: 
I think it would take at least three working seasons to do it in a 
proper manner. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Leaving out of account the dr 3 T -weather 
street-flow into Mill Brook, it might be, might it not, that the dry- 
weather flow of Mill Brook for any one day would be 750,000 
gallons? A. — It might perhaps be arranged so. Of course I don’t 
know but what it might be so. That is not the flow, but what might 
be stopped. 

Q. — As a matter of fact it is sometimes stopped, isn’t it? A. —I 
don’t think so. 

Q. —Do you know upon what surveys the State Board of Health 
make their statement? A. — I am very certain from information 
they received from me : I am very positive about that. 

Mr. Goulding. Dr. Walcott stated to Mr. Allen this morning 
that he presumed that 750,000 gallons was a misunderstanding. 

Mr. Flagg. We were content to let it remain so ; but now, if you 
are going to attack the State Board of Health — 

Mr. Goulding. Not at all. This 750,000 gallons we supposed 
was a misstatement; the rest we supposed to be correct. Mr. 
Taylor furnished the gaugings. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —The statement that the average flow in 
four months was 3,500,000 gallons is right? A. — As I said, the 
lowest recorded flow is over 4,000,000 gallons at Lincoln Square. 

Q • —The lowest you have recorded, or they have recorded? A. — 
That anybody has recorded. 

<2- — Do you know everything that has been done by the State 
Board of Health? A. — No, sir, I do not; but I think that all the 


273 


/ 


gaugings that ever have been taken of Mill Brook, or the sewers of 
Worcester, I have taken. That I am quite positive of. 

Q • —You suppose the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity 
deliberately allege what is untrue? A. —No, sir: I do not mean to 
be understood as saying any such thing. 

Q. (B} t Mr. Goulding.) —Is there any doubt that all the figures 
of the gaugings of those flows that the State Board of Health, Lunacy, 
and Charity obtained this last year were obtained from you? A. — 
I don’t think there is. 

Q. — Could the 3 T get into the sewers without your knowing it? 
A. —I don’t think the} r could. I think } t ou will find in a former 
report the statement of my gauging of 4,000,000. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Speaking generally, the rest of the re¬ 
port is somewhere near accurate, isn’t it? A. — 1 have no reason to 
suspect that it is not. 

Q. —Do you know any thing about the flow of water in the sewers, 
whether it looks clear, or not? A. — In the lateral sewers, it is gen¬ 
eral^ quite clear. Mondays you will notice a difference. You will 
notice a soapy appearance, and 3 ’ou will often notice that in Mill 
Brook. 

Q. (B} r Mr. Chamberlain.) —How do you account for that w*ater 
being clear? Does running the sewage into it make it clear? A. — 
No, sir. 

Q. — How r do } T ou account for it ? A. — The only reason is, it is so 
much diluted by pure water, partially w r ater from the water-pipes and 
partially water from the under-drainage. That is, the sewers do take 
more or less of the under-drainage of the cit 3 -. 


CHARLES A. ALLEN. Recalled. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Have 3 ’ou noticed any thing about the 
water running clear in the sewers? and, if so, is there any explana¬ 
tion that you can suggest? A. — I don’t know that I ever examined 
it on Monday; but I should be inclined to think, that of course it 
would present a different appearance on that day from others : but 
ordinarily, in our lateral sewers, where there are no manufacturing 
establishments, the water is very clear. Of course, there is sedi¬ 
ment at the bottom of the sewers, and the quantity of it depends some¬ 
thing upon the grade; but I think it is undoubtedly due partly to the 
fact that the sewers that were built previous to three or four years 
ago were not built tight at the bottom, and we get a tremendous 
quantity of under-drainage, sub-drainage ; and probably the sewage 
matter is diluted to that extent that you would not notice it particu¬ 
lar^ 7 . 


274 


Cross - Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —The previous witness stated that the lowest 
flow was 4,000,000 gallons of water in Mill Brook ; and you say that 
with an average daily flow of 3,000,000 gallons of sewage it is so 
diluted that it looks all right? A. — No : I wasn’t speaking of Mill 
Brook. I said the lateral sewers, where there were no manufacturing 
establishments. 

Q. — Now, how about Mill Brook? How does that look? A. — 
It looks black and filth}-, just as you say, of course. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT H. CHAMBERLAIN. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You are the superintendent of sewers 
in Worcester? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. —And have been for a good many years? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q .— I want to call your attention to one or two points. First, 
how many catch-basins are there in the city ? A. — About nine hun¬ 
dred. 

Q. — How much material is taken out of those catch-basins in the 
course of a year? Have you any means of estimating? A. — My 
only means of estimating is by knowing about how much can be got 
out in a da} 7 , etc., and the number of times we go around in a year. 
In all probability, 4,000 to 5,000 loads. 

Q. — Where is that carried? A. — That is used for filling, and 
disposed of in any way we can. 

Q. — Is it dumped into the river or brook at all? A. — No, sir. 

Q. — Have you noticed the flow of water in the sewers, how it 
appeared? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — What do you say about it in the lateral sewers? A. —Usually 
clear. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —This material that you take out is such 
that you can use it for filling? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. —And it is not faecal matter? A. — Not at all: only street- 
wash. No sewers enter into the catch-basins. 

Q. — Have you ever observed any ill effect of the sewers on the 
health of the men who work in them? A. — No, sir. I have had 
men work in them for ten years in succession. They have their 
hands in the sewage, and are wet with it every day; and they are in 
as good health as ordinary laboring men. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —Are you about the sewers yourself a 
good deal? A. — Every day, more or less. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —Ever observe any ill effects upon your 
health? A. —No, sir. 


/ 


275 

Q‘ Well, you would rather see this sewage flow down the river 
than to have it remain in Worcester? A. — We don’t desire to keep it. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Is there any city ordinance regard¬ 
ing cesspools, or do the} 7 run them directly into the sewers? A. — 
They run directly into the sewers, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN WALKER. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) — You are one of the aldermen of Worces¬ 
ter? A. — I am. 

Q • —Your business is that of an ice-dealer, I believe? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q • — Pretty extensively engaged in that business in "Worcester? 

A. — Considerably. 

Q • — Have you had any different specimens of ice from different , 
places analyzed this winter? and, if so, with what results? A. — l r es, 

sir. 

Q . — Tell the story. A. — I didn’t know of being called here at 
all, and I haven’t brought an} 7 statistics with me. I had five samples 
carried to Professor Thompson about three weeks ago, that were 
taken from three separate ponds. 

Q. —What ponds? A. — One from what is called Crescent- 
street Pond ; one from Salisbury’s Pond on Grove Street, just above 
the wire-mill; and one from Coes’s reservoir, in New Worcester. 

Q. —Coes’s reservoir is on Tatnuck Brook? A. — l r es, sir, on 
Tatnuck Brook, — a brook which the city is talking of taking for pure 
water for the city. 

Q. — No sewage from the city of Worcester goes into that stream 
above that pond? A. —I think there is no sewage enters the 
stream at all anywhere. There is a little factory in Tatnuck. Pos¬ 
sibly the sewage from that may work into it. 

Q. — Where is the Crescent-street Pond ? A. — Crescent-street 
Pond is near Lincoln Street, right north of where the Boston, Barre, 

& Gardner Railroad Depot is. 

Q. —Now, what were the comparative results of that analysis? A. 

— That is all I can give you, because I haven’t got the statistics with 
me. I have the report of Professor Thompson, but I can’t give you 
the exact statements contained in it. His general statement was, 
that the No. 1 (he had it by numbers: he didn’t know any thing 
about where the ice came from) shows indications of sewage. 

Q. — What pond did that come from? A. — That came from 
Coes’s reservoir. The other ponds were all reported as slightly pol¬ 
luted. There was no sewage in it. That is my recollection of the 
report; and, so far, it is correct. He gave it in numbers, and the 


276 


anatysis he gave was yofSoTT? taking the city-water of Worcester for a 
standard. That was the most impure water that he found,—the 
water coming from that ice. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q . (By Mr. Flagg.) —Mr. Walker, you don’t furnish your cus¬ 
tomers with ice from Blackstone River below the mouth of the sewer, 
do you ? A. — It would not be fit for domestic purposes. 

Q .—Why wouldn’t it? A. —That depends more on scientific 
men. I never tried it to see. 

Q. —You wouldn’t want to buy it? A. —No : I have no occasion 
for it. I believe you have some down in Millbury that has been 
offered me. 

Q . (By Mr. Morse.) —Did 3 T ou personally take these specimens 
of ice that you had analyzed ? A. — My agent took them to Pro¬ 
fessor Thompson. 

Q. — Perhaps you misunderstood m} T question. I didn’t mean 
whether you personally took them to him, but whether or not you 
personally cut them from these different places. A. —I didn’t do 
the work myself; but I saw that they were cut from those places, saw 
them cut, and saw them taken from the pond. After the five pieces 
were carried, which represented three different ponds, I received a 
note from Professor Thompson, wishing me to carry him other sam¬ 
ples from the same places, saying that he was not satisfied with the 
anatysis. Then I went and took the ice myself, as mj T agent was 
away, from these various ponds, and carried them to him; and he did 
not alter his report at all. 


TESTIMONY OF LORING COES. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —You live in New Worcester? Yes, sir. 

Q. — You are the owner of Coes’s reservoir, so-called ? A. — Yes, 
sir. 

Q. — And the wrench-factor} T , etc. ? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q. — Do you know anything about the use of those sprinklers? 
A. —I never have had any in my mill. 

Q. — Have you known about their use? A. — Yes, sir: I have 
seen them put up and seen them up ; never have seen them used. 

Q. —Were you a practical mechanic in your earlier days? A. — 
Well, I have been always a mechanic. 

Q .—What do you say about the utility of them, if } t ou know 
any thing about them? A. — I don’t know very much about them. 
I suppose where they have been put up, if they are always kept dry, 
they will work ; but, where they have been wet, a small hole through 
a piece of iron, if I understand it, will fill up. 


/ 


277 


Cross-Examination. 

Q • (By Mr. Flagg.) —Do you know that those sprinklers are put 
up extensively over the country? A. — Yes, sir. 

Q • — By recommendation of the insurance companies? A. —Yes, 
sir : I believe they are. 

Q. —And that they remain put up until a fire occurs? A. —Yes, 
sir. 

Q • — And that they have been used with good effect? A. —Yes, 
sir, when they are in good order, they have been used with good 
effect, I believe. 

Q • — Can you get manufacturing property insured in a first-class 
mutual company unless you have these very sprinklers ? A. — I don’t 
know about that. I haven’t been insured in a mutual company. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH M. DYSON. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.)—W hat is your business, Mr. Dyson? 
A. — State inspector of factories and public buildings. 

Q. — Do 3 T ou know this rendering establishment down there on 
the Millbury Road near the Blackstone River? A. —I do. 

Q. —Won’t you describe what it is, and what they do there? A. 
— It is a place, I have always understood, that cleaned tripe, and 
rendered grease and bones and such like. I have noticed a smell 
from it a great many times within the last year in driving by there 
evenings, and even daytimes. 

Q .—How far away can you smell it? A. — I have smelled it 
just after leaving Millbury. I have also smelled it up above Quin- 
sigamond, in going down that wa}\ The strongest was opposite the 
watering-trough, directly opposite the building there. I have found 
it worse in the evening than I have in the daytime. Some two 
months ago if was so bad that I drove over there to see what they 
were doing. I found they were emptying their vats. It was some¬ 
where about ten o’clock at night when I came by there. 

Cross-Examination. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —When you speak of “leaving Millbury,” 
you mean, leaving the town of Millbury? A. — Leaving the town 
of Millbury. 

Q .—That is three miles away? A. —That is three miles away, 
at the turn of the road. It is about half way between the village 
and Burling Mills. 

Q .—That would be three miles from this establishment? A .— 
No : I shouldn’t say it was over two. 


278 


Q .—At the same time, the river would be within a few feet of 
the road ? A. — It is off a little piece from the road at that point. 

Q. — How far? A. —I should say it was two or three hundred 
yards, or more. 

Q .—And you ascribed the odor to an establishment two miles 
away? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —Are those steam-tanks, or not? 
A. — I should sa}^ they were not. 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT A. LOVELL. 

Q. (By Mr. Gou'lding.) —Do 3 ’ou know any thing about that 
rendering establishment? A. —I visited the rendering establish¬ 
ment of Jeffard & Darling 3 ’esterday, in company with the city mar¬ 
shal of Worcester. We were informed by Mr. Jeffard that their 
business was the collecting of refuse from the markets in Worcester. 
This refuse is collected every da 3 T , and taken to the establishment, and 
submitted to a process of boiling, I think, for extracting the grease. 
After the grease is extracted, this material is put into vitriol, and 
then it is placed upon steam-coils, for the purpose of drying it. In 
that process of drying, it throws off a thick, heavy vapor, which has 
a very disagreeable smell. In order to get rid of that smell, as far as 
possible, the 3 T have constructed some earth-closets ; and, with a revolv¬ 
ing fan, tlie 3 T force what the 3 r can of this vapor into those earth-closets. 
Those earth-closets will not, of course, take all the vapor. A great 
deal escapes into the air; and Mr. Jeffard pointed to some houses 
some three-quarters of a mile off, and said, when the wind was in 
that direction, the people who occupied those houses could distinctly 
discern the odor there, and for a distance of half a mile or a mile in 
that direction the 3 r could clearly discern the odor from that factory. 

Q. —What is the state of the atmosphere around the establishment 
there as 3^011 come to it? A. —It is very disagreeable. 

Q. — Where does the drainage of that establishment go to? A. — 
They have constructed a pipe-drain from the factory to the Blackstone 
River; and I went to the mouth of that pipe-drain, and it was throw¬ 
ing into the river a bad-looking mixture of blood and little scraps of 
meat and eveiy thing that was disagreeable. 

Q. — Has that any thing to do with the sewage of Worcester? A. 
— It has no connection with the sewage of Worcester. 

Q. — You are on the Board of Health of the city, and have been 
for a number of 3 *ears? A. —I am, sir. 

Cross-Examination . 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) —This place, I take it, must be a nuisance? 
A. — To some extent. 


I 


279 

Q- —But the Board of Health of Worcester allows it to exist within 
its limits? A .— We do not consider that the odor from that estab¬ 
lishment is a sufficient nuisance for the Board of Health to interfere 
in the matter at all. They have taken all the pains that we can rea¬ 
sonably expect from them. If we suppressed every industrial enter¬ 
prise in Worcester on account of some offensive odor, we would drive 
half the population out of the city. There is a strong pressure 
brought to bear upon the board all the time to suppress this estab¬ 
lishment and that establishment all over the city; and, if we acted 
upon that pressure, we should drive half of the population out of the 
city. 

Q . —This tripe establishment was formerly at Quinsigamond ? A. 

— I don’t know where it was. I have heard it said that there was an 
establishment there. 

Q . — Which the Board of Health drove out of Quinsigamond? A. 

— I wasn’t on the Board of Health at that time. I don’t know any 
thing about that. 

Q. —It cannot be on account of the fact that this is so near the 
Millbury line, that it is allowed to exist? A. —I don’t think it is. I 
think a person driving on the Millbury road, when he got into that 
neighborhood, would discern a strong odor; and nine persons out of 
ten would say that it came from the sewer* whereas it came from that 
establishment. My attention was never called to it until yesterday. 

Q. (B}^ Mr. Goulding.) —How far is it from any house? A .— 
I can’t say whether there is any house close by. I think one of the 
firm lives near there, and Millbury line is half a mile from there. 

Q. (B 3 7 the Chairman.) —Did anybody around there ever complain 
of that establishment as a nuisance? A. — I have never heard of an} r 
complaint. 

Q. (By Mr. Chamberlain.) —What kind of pipe is that? A. — 
It is cement pipe laid on the surface. 

Q. — How large is the pipe? A. — Eight inches, I should judge, 
by the looks. 

Q. (By Dr. Harris.) —Was it full all the time? A. —It was full 
yesterday, the only time I was there, and discharging very offensive 
matter into the stream. 


TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. BARNARD. 

Q. (By Mr. Goulding.) —What is your business? A. — Slate¬ 
roofing and asphalt. 

Q. — Ever work on the Burling Mills ? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. — When did you work on the Burling Mills ? A. —I can’t give 
you the exact date. 


\ 


280 

Q. —What year? A. — I work there almost every year, not par¬ 
ticularly on the Burling Mills ; but I am slating and asphalting the 
roof at Fishersville, and my men are down there every day, and I am 
down over tfie road. 

Q. —Ever notice any offensive odors from the river? A .— No, 
sir. I have in the cars, when the wind was west and the river on the 
other side of me, noticed an offensive odor from this tripe-shop, as 
they call it. 

Q. —You usually drive down? A. —I go both wa} T s,— in the 
cars, and drive. 

Q. —Where have you noticed it? A. — Soon after leaving Quin- 
sigamond, and from there until I got beyond the watering-trough. 

Q. — Where did you make up your mind that it came from ? A. — 
I always supposed that it came from the rendering establishment. I 
supposed it w r as simply a tripe-shop. 

Q. —You have smelled that same smell when you have been in the 
cars, with the river on the other side ? A. — I have smelled it when 
the windows were open. You don’t notice it when the windows are 
closed. 

Q. —When the wind was west? A. —Yes, sir. 

Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — Both the railroad and the highway run 
along by the river, and you never noticed any smell? A. — I didn’t 
notice it until I got below Quinsigamond. 

Adjourned to Monday, March 20, at 10 o’clock. 


281 


SEVENTH HEARING. 


Boston, Monday, March 20, 1882. 

The hearing was resumed at 10.15 a.m. 

Mr. Flagg. I have a letter from a witness of ours who was 
unable to be present. I understand my brother Goulding does not 
object to its coming in as part of our evidence now. It is from 
Dr. Joseph N. Bates of Worcester, a physician of more than local 
reputation. 

Worcester, March 16 , 1882 . 

George A. Flagg, Esq. 

Bear Sir, — I regret that sickness has prevented my attendance before the 
Legislative Committee now in session, the question before the board being 
the disposal of the sewage of the city of Worcester by the Blackstone River 
and its tributaries. 

For quite ten years last past, the unpleasant consequences of contamination 
of deleterious gases from sewage, and various contaminations from impurities 
from manufacturing materials, have caused impurities unsuitable for purposes 
of cleanliness, or for use for live-stock, or for use with machinery, or the ordi¬ 
nary uses of a living stream of water. To refer to diseases generated by the 
use of impure water need not here be dw r elt upon, as all understand the 
dangers to which man and the brute creation are subjected by such exposures. 
The diseases incident to such exposures have been well considered by gentle¬ 
men who have preceded me. I am pleased to indorse the declarations uttered 
by'gentlemen of my profession, scientists, and others, and most sincerely trust 
that judicious and timely measures may be speedily adopted for the radical 
relief of this important measure. 

Respectfully yours, 

Dr. J. N. BATES. 


CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE REMONSTRANTS BY 

FRANK P. GOULDING, Esq. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee,— Upon 
whatever other matter the parties here differ, they agree that this is a 
very important question. The petitioners believe that it is impor¬ 
tant, because they profess to believe that their business enterprises, 
and the salubrity of their homes, are in some measure involved in the 
disposal of this question by the Legislature. We believe that it is 
important, because it is a proposition to embark Worcester in a 
course of expensive experiment, which, so far as we are able to see, 
gives but little promise of certain success. But it is further, in our 
view, important, because it is a step in a path of new legislation, 


282 


involving important consequences, involving important questions of 
law and of science, involving, in short, a new departure with the 
Legislature. 

I shall best attest m 3 7 sense of its importance, I think, by pro¬ 
ceeding at once, without an } 7 preliminary observations, to present the 
views that I have to present on behalf of the city of Worcester. 
But I desire to premise what I have to say by the statement of a few 
facts, and the furnishing of a few statistics, —facts which are not in 
dispute substantially, statistics that cannot be controverted, and 
which must be the subject of constant allusion in the course of my 
argument, and, I think, must be a subject of constant reference in 
order to arrive at ail } 7 just conclusion upon this question. 

( 1 ) The sewage of Worcester is about twice as dilute as the 
average of fifty English towns, before it mingles with Mill Brook, 
which is bv law a sewer. 

(2) It then becomes diluted by an addition, on the average, of 
more than four times its own volume of the natural flow of that 
stream, and, on no very extraordinary occasions, with fourteen times 
its own volume, and, in times of freshets, wdth forty times its own 
volume. 

(3) Mill Brook, thus polluted, empties into Blackstone River, and 
adds to its pollution. 

(4) The pollution of the river at Morse’s sash-factory (which 
includes all the pollution of Kettle Brook, Ram’s-horn Brook, and all 
the other streams which empty into Kettle Brook), as compared with 
the reservoir, is as 9.0899 to 4.4120, or more than 2 to. 1. 

(5) As showing the effect of the flow of the stream in purifying 
the water, the pollution of Mill-brook sewer, as compared with the 
river at Morse’g sash-factory, in 1875, is as 28.3109 to 9.0899, or 
more than 3 to 1 ; or, taking the analysis of 1881, is 41.8790 to 
12.6410, or 3^ to 1, — a comparison which again charges to the 
sewage all the pollution of the mills and other pollutions of Kettle 
Brook and other streams. 

( 6 ) The results generally stated by the Board of Health, Lunacy, 
and Charity are as follows : — 

(а) By means of a dam midway between Worcester and Millbury, 
the stream is ponded ; and there the solids held in suspension are 
deposited, and a nuisance is created. And this is the only nuisance 
which the board report in terms, and that is caused by a dam. 

You will search this report throughout in vain for the word “ nui¬ 
sance,” whatever they mean by nuisance there, except, I think, at 
this point; and that is caused by a dam. 

( б ) At a number of dams in Millbury some further deposition 
occurs, presumably with no nuisance resulting; at least, there is no 
nuisapce stated. 


♦ 


283 


(c) Along the whole course of the stream, for some miles below 
Worcester, putrefaction of the organic constituents of the sewage 
takes place (most rapidly in the summer months) ; and, as a conse¬ 
quence, offensive gases are liberated, which are largely the cause of 
complaint. 

(d) The deposits stimulate the growth of aquatic plants, and thus, 
and b} T their own bulk, are filling up the ponds; and this the mill- 
owners complain of. 

(e) The stream is very offensive at times ; and this, with the filling 
up of the ponds, will soon depreciate the property in the vicinity. 
You will observe that both this statement and this prophecy are of an 
indefinite nature. 

(/) It is the belief of the people dwelling on and near the banks 
of the stream, that a perceptibly injurious effect upon the general 
health has been produced ; and this belief is shared in, to some extent, 
by the resident pli 3 T sicians. 

This belief is not, at least, so far as appears, shared in to any 
extent by the board. 

(g) The stream, four miles below the sewer outlet, is unmistaka¬ 
bly polluted ; twenty-five miles below, the impurity is all but lost to 
chemical tests. 

( h ) It appears that an increase of the pollution of the stream since 
1872 has taken place, and a much less marked increase since 1875, 
showing a diminished ratio of increase. 

(i) The deposits, except at the sash-factory, have not increased so 
considerably as to be the nuisance, of themselves, which might have 
been expected. 

This statement, gentlemen, which is taken from the Report of the 
State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charit} r , is, I submit, the strong¬ 
est statement of the case that can be made against Worcester. I 
shall have occasion later on to discuss this evidence ; but I submit 
now that I must carry with me every member of the Committee, when 
I say that the State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, on the 
facts, have stated this case out to the extreme limit of possibility 
consistent with the truth. 

Now, in addition to this statement, I wish also to premise some 
other facts, which must be equally beyond dispute, geographical, 
topographical, and historical. 

A. Mill Brook, with its tributaries, Pine Meadow’ and Piedmont 
Brooks, is the natural and only channel of drainage of the city of 
Worcester. The territory on which that city is situated will con¬ 
tinue to discharge its surface drainage into Mill Brook while the laws 
of gravitation continue, unless some system of drainage of an artifi¬ 
cial nature shall be devised on a much more stupendous plan than 
any thing yet suggested. 


284 


B. The cit}’ of Worcester was settled much earlier than Millbury, 
and the towns lower down on the Blackstone. Worcester was settled 
in 1684 to 1718, Millbury in 1743, Grafton in 1730 to 1735, Sut¬ 
ton in 1716 to 1718, Northbridge in 1772, Uxbridge in 1727 ; and 
therefore, whatever superior strength of title and right arises from 
priority in time belongs to Worcester. 

C. The growth of Worcester has been a natural, steady growth, 
obedient to the ordinary laws that govern the accumulation of large 
masses of people in communities ; and that growth covers a period of 
nearly two hundred } T ears. It is not a case of Alexander, or any 
other conqueror, taking a bod} 7 of colonists out and planting them on 
a stream up above an older town or city. The city has grown by 
those natural processes, more rapidl} 7 at times, less rapidly at other 
times, but obedient to the laws that govern the growth of commu¬ 
nities in this country. 

D. During all this time the pollution of Mill Brook and Blackstone 
River has gone on as the natural and necessaiy result of the existence 
of the town. Necessary , I sa}^, because any project of otherwise dis¬ 
posing of sewage than by emptying into the nearest river, or into the 
sea, was never heard of in any land (if we except Edinburgh, which 
is a notorious failure) until within a comparatively few } r ears. We 
have heard from Dr. Folsom, since this hearing, that it began about 
fifteen or seventeen years ago, on the Croydon farm in England ; and 
not until within a very short time could the most enthusiastic friend 
of precipitation, downward intermittent filtration, or broad irrigation, 
or 44 willow walla winding through the meadow,” according to Col. 
Waring’s plan, claim that any thing like success was attained by any 
form of disposing of sewage except the natural form of diluting it 
with as much water as possible, as quickl} 7 as possible. 

E. Long years ago, by the natural results of the growth of Worces¬ 
ter and Millbury, and the other communities on its banks, the Black¬ 
stone River had become a foul stream. 

F. The Blackstone River never was and never will be a source of 
water-supply for domestic afld other similar uses. 

Along with these statements of facts, I desire to read some more 
facts. And now I come to the point of statistics, for the purpose of 
comparing the Blackstone River with other streams in this Common¬ 
wealth, and for the purpose of determining what is the actual amount 
of pollution of this river, and what is intended by the general state¬ 
ments contained in State reports, and what exact facts exist which 
justify, or fail to justify, the vague imputations that are laid upon the 
Blackstone River. 

(1) Analyses of different streams and basins reporte the Board 
of Health in 1876 (the same report that most of the analyses in this 


285 


report of 1882 are taken from) show the following facts, which I 
desire to set over against the condition of the Blackstone at Morse’s 
sash-factoiy, which is the foulest point, I think, of the Blackstone, 
chargeable to Worcester sewage. 

And let me say here, that I take the analysis of 1875 of the Black¬ 
stone River for this purpose, for three reasons : — 

First , Because it is the analysis, or earlier analyses, to which I am 
obliged to resort in order to get the analyses of most of the other 
streams in the State, with which I propose to compare it. 

Second , This report of 1882 says that the increase of pollution 
since 1875 has been much less marked ; and it is fair to presume, 
therefore, that the other streams have increased in pollution as much 
as this. 

Third , Because this report of 1882 is really largel}* taken, so far 
as its facts are concerned, from this Report of the State Board of 
Health of 1876. 

Let us disabuse ourselves, if we suppose the State Board of Health, 
Lunacy, and Charity, in obedience to 3 T our resolve of last }'ear, went 
into any thorough and extensive original investigation. They did 
not do it. They have made a very able and thoroughly impartial 
report; but they derive and draw most of their facts from that mine 
of information, to wit, the Report of the State Board of Health in 
1876. 

It is, therefore, fair that I should, for the purpose of showing what is 
meant by the proposition that the Blackstone River is probably more 
polluted than other streams, take that analysis found in that report 
of 1876. 

(а) In Neponset River, at Milton Lower Mills, above Neponset 
Village, the impurities are 6.7363, nearly three-fourths (or exactly 74 
per cent.) the pollution of the Blackstone (p. 96). 

(б) Charles River, below Bellingham, 7.5758, more than three- 
fourths (or exactly 83 per cent.) the pollution of the Blackstone (p. 
107). 

(c) Connecticut River, immediately above Springfield, 6.6254, or 
more than two-thirds (exactly 72.8 per cent.) of the pollution of the 
Blackstone (p. 122). 

(d) Winixetuxet River, above Taunton, 8.1320, more than six- 
sevenths (or 89 per cent.) the pollution of the Blackstone. 

(e) Taunton River, near North Dighton, 17.5902 (or very nearly 
1.93 per cent.), almost twice the pollution of the Blackstone (p. 140). 

This report of 1876 says that the Blackstone River is probably 
more polluted than any other stream in Massachusetts, and that is 
quoted by the report this year, showing that they have not gone 
beyond that, and that they founded their opinions upon that. The 


286 


State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, in their report of 1882, 
make the following statement of analyses in two other basins : — 

(/) Deerfield basin, at seven points. I will not stop to read them 
all; but the average of the seven points is 11.4914 (1.26 per cent), 
or more than one-fourth in excess of the pollution of the Blackstone, 
on an average. Several of these Deerfield-basin points, selected at 
random, have much more; and in one place there is twice the pollu¬ 
tion of the Blackstone River. 

(g) In Miller’s-river basin eleven points were taken, which show an 
average of 8.8350; that is, 97 percent, of the average pollution of 
the Blackstone ; and in several places largel} T in excess, and in some 
more than twice the Blackstone standard. 

In the report of the State Board of Health for 1874, they show the 
condition of several other streams : — 

• (1) The Merrimack, below Lowell, 8.3891, or more than nine- 
tenths the Blackstone standard at sash-factory (exactly 92 per 
cent.). 

At another point, 7.007, or more than three-fourths the Black¬ 
stone standard (exactly 77 per cent.). 

Consider, also, the vastly greater volume of water in the Merri¬ 
mack. 

(2) The Sudbury River: — 

(a) Above Ashland, 7.5041, or more than six-sevenths the pollu¬ 
tion of the Blackstone at sash-factory (exactly 85 per cent.). 

(b) At Framingham, 7.6711. This is one of the sources of 
Boston’s water-supply, and its pollution 85 per cent of that of the 
Blackstone at Morse’s factory. 

(3) The Concord River : — 

(a) At Concord, 6.3731, nearly three-fourths the pollution of the 
Blackstone*(exactly 70 per cent. ). 

(5) At Lowell, 8.5754, or more than nine-tenths the Blackstone 
standard (exactly 94 per cent.). 

(4) Cochituate Lake and its sources of suppl}': — 

Look at some comparisons in connection with that, without taking 
Pegan Brook, which is really a nasty place. We will leave that out, 
as exceedingly filthy, and take other places with which it is fair to 
compare the Blackstone, if we want to see where the Blackstone 
stands comparatively with the rest of the rivers of the State, and 
what the State Board of Health mean when they say it is probably 
the most polluted stream in the State, and what the Board of Health, 
Lunacy, and Charity mean when they quote the words of the State 
Board of Health of 1876 to the same point. 

(a) In the channel through the bar which separates the main lake 
from the basin into which Pegan Brook empties, average [filtered] 


287 


8.5621, more than nine-tenths the Blackstone standard (94 per 
cent.). 

(6) Outlet of Farm Pond, 6.8027, nearly three-fourths the Black- 
stone standard (74.8 per cent.). 

(c) Beaver-dam Brook, 7.8867, nearly seven-eighths the standard 
of Blackstone impurity (86.7 per cent.) (pp. 116, 117). 

(5) Mystic Lake and its sources : — 

(а) Bacon’s Bridge, average, 12.5178, or more than one-third 
greater pollution than the Blackstone (1.37 per cent.). 

(5) Outlet of Horn Pond, 7.6657, more than five-sixths the Black¬ 
stone (84 per cent.). 

(c) Abajonna River, 11.6973, or one-fourth more than the Black¬ 
stone (1.28 per cent.) (p. 130). 

(б) Water as delivered in Lowell from the Merrimack, after fil¬ 
tration, 7.8271, or six-sevenths the pollution of the Blackstone at 
Morse’s factory (86 per cent.) (p. 135). 

These anatyses, you understand, are made by taking a hundred 
thousand parts of water, and then they state the ammonia, the albu¬ 
minoid-ammonia, the chlorine, and the volatile and fixed solid residue, 
and sometimes the} T put in other elements ; but those are the only 
elements that are in these analyses that I have referred to. That is 
the basis on which they proceed. 

The average of nineteen different places in different basins in the 
State, taken at random, excluding such places as Began Brook, and 
including several sources of water-supply, and some filtered water, 
shows a pollution expressed by 8.8662, or about .99 as much pollution 
as the much-offending Blackstone River at Millbury (exactly 98.6 on 
an average). 

o / w 

Another fact that I desire to put in, which appears in the anatysis 
of 1881, reported in the Report of the State Board of Health, Lunac}’, 
and Charity of 1882 (pp. 122, 123), is, that the pollution of the Black¬ 
stone River, above the Worcester sewage, before it has received the 
contamination of the city, is 8.7579. It is, therefore, twenty-nine- 
thirtieths as much polluted before it receives the Worcester sewage, as 
it is when it reaches Morse’s sash-factory. Add, from the analysis of 
1881, Singletary Brook in Millbury, and this pollution is 8.9560, or 
more than ninety-eight per cent, of the pollution of the Blackstone at 
the sash-factory. And this board themselves say that “it must be 
remembered, that a very large portion of the pollution below Millbury 
comes from Singletary Brook, which is a very foul stream.” It is 
.985 as polluted as the Blackstone at Morse’s factory. 

I have read these statistics, that cannot be controverted. They are 
taken from the State Board of Health Report; and they exhibit the 
condition of Blackstone River, with reference to other rivers, as far 
as chemical analysis reveals any thing. 


238 


Now, in view of this state of things, the petitioners come here, and 
they ask for legislation which shall prohibit the citizens of Worces¬ 
ter from emptj-ing its sewage into the Blackstone River, so as to 
pollute it; and that involves, of course, its purification ; for the city 
must empty into the Blackstone River the waste of all the water it 
uses, and it is not in the power of this Legislature to prevent it, be¬ 
cause it cannot repeal the laws of nature. They ask for legislation 
which will compel the city of Worcester to purify it. Now, seeing 
that this is enormously expensive, to begin with, according to any¬ 
body’s view, I suppose they would receive no considerable attention 
from this Legislature, unless there is some ground of morals, or of 
law, that would impose this duty upon Worcester as a communitj^. 
And I want, in the first place, to discuss this question very briefly, of 
the relations of Worcester to this thing, in a moral point of view. 

My friends have assumed here, with great confidence, and I may 
say with great nonchalance, that Worcester is to blame in this matter, 
that she is in fault. The motto of Millbury, and of our friends 
below, has been this : “ Let Worcester cease to pollute the Blackstone 
River, or let Worcester cease to exist! You are committing this 
injury, remedy it! ” They have not stopped to discuss an} T rule of 
morals which imposes an obligation. They have reiterated the injury ; 
they have dwelt upon the inconvenience; they have not discussed the 
rule of morals, if any exists, that imposes an} T obligation upon Worces¬ 
ter, in connection with this matter. They have reminded me a lit¬ 
tle, in this respect, of the proceedings of Dogberry, in the case of 
the Commonwealth of Messina against Borachio and Conrade, when 
he said, “ Masters, it is proved already that you are little better than 
false knaves ; and it will go near to be thought so, shortly.” They 
come here, and they seem to think or assume that it is proved 
already that we are guilty of this thing: it is only a question how we 
are to absolve ourselves. My friends on the other side regard 
Worcester, perhaps, as having, out of executive clemency, the privi¬ 
lege to choose the mode of her execution, but not to plead to the 
indictment, or to be heard in defence; and perhaps there is a little 
temerity in my position in undertaking to question this position, inas¬ 
much as they have brought here a gentleman who has discussed in 
writing, before }’ou, the law and the ethics, as well as the science, of 
this question, and apparently disposed of the whole matter. Now, 
for Col. Waring as a sanitary engineer, I should have no feeling 
and no words but of the utmost respect; and if he came here, and 
expressed an opinion on this case, upon the scientific view of it, or 
upon the law, or the morals of it (although I do not know why he 
should undertake to instruct this Committee of educated gentlemen, 
either in law or in morals), I should feel that he was entitled to my 


289 


simple respect; bat when the exigencies of his case, and the induce¬ 
ment of his retainer, require him to ingeniously construct a studied 
insult to the city of Worcester, and come here and read it when it 
has grown cold, and then allow it to be published in the public prints, 
to be circulated, I feel that I am absolved from the obligation to 
treat him with an} r more respect than his virtues and his intelligence 
and his apparent knowledge of the subject appear from his statement 
to entitle him to. I shall accord him that, and no more. What I 
mean is this. He went on to describe the Paris method, and read 
this : — 

“ In Paris, until very recently, the water-closet matter, and even the chamber- 
slops of houses, was by law delivered into tight cesspools, to be emptied from 
time to time. Even now there is only an insignificant exception in the case of 
persons who adopt a certain prescribed straining apparatus, which allows the 
liquid portions thus produced to pass into the sewers. In many towns in Eng¬ 
land, generally as the result of judicial or legislative restrictions, the devices 
above indicated, or their equivalent, have been adopted, and are systematically 
carried opt with the direct purpose of preventing the pollution of rivers. In 
nearly every city on the continent of Europe, sometimes with this object, but 
more often with the view of preserving a valuable manure, there is and always 
has been an entire withholding of such wastes from the sewers, which are 
constructed to remove storm-water only. In fact, more precedent by far can be 
found for the above-prescribed course than for any other method of treating 
domestic and industrial wastes. 

“Please understand ” (and this is the point) “that I do not make this sugges¬ 
tion as a recommendation. I realize very fully, that, for this restriction to be 
placed upon a community like that of Worcester, would be nothing less than an 
economical and sanitary calamity. It would inevitably lay a cumbersome tax on 
all its people, and would lead to serious injury to the public health. I suggest 
it only as a possible means by which that community may, without sacrificing 
its existence, and without destroying its property, concentrate upon itself the 
disadvantages which it seems not averse to inflicting upon others.” 

When he comes here, and goes out of his way to impute motives to 
the city of Worcester, and to say that they are not averse to inflicting 
a “sanitary calamity ” upon others, I say he has relieved me from any 
obligation of dealing with his paper in any other way than as its 
merits deserve. 

He starts out with a display of learning which I desire to look 
into : — 

“Under all ancient practices a sewer is only a drain, a channel for the re¬ 
moval of waters which the proper enjoyment of territory requires to be removed. 
Until well into the present century this was probably the only meaning of the 
term; and up to that time the office of a sewer was simply to furnish a safe 
outlet for rain-water, for soil-water, for the overflow or backing-up of streams, 
etc. The use of these sewers for the removal of excreinentitious and other 
refuse matters is very recent. The use of common sewers for foul drainage is 
an assumption of recent date, which has grown up largely through neglect, and 
with no well-determined conception of the ultimate effect to be produced.” 


290 


Now, that is set in the fore-front of his statement, and it is im¬ 
portant, if true ; but I suppose that it would be impossible to condense 
into the same space more charlatanry and ignorance than that display s. 
It lias just enough of truth to show that his whole investigation of 
that matter is on the surface, and specious. It is undoubtedly true, 
that, in the beginning, the term “ sewer ” included any clean drain 
as well as an unclean one, and that there was an ancient statute of 
sewers which had particular reference to those drains which drained 
such fens as exist in Lincolnshire and other parts of England. But 
that the term “ sewer” has meant any thing else, for the last four 
hundred years, than a drain to carry off filth, is a proposition that no 
man in his senses, whether he was a sanitary engineer, or whatever 
else he was, would put in writing, and read to an intelligent commit¬ 
tee. There was one Shakspeare, who lived in England, and wrote 
quite a number of plays ; and Artemus Ward says that he was “ the 
pride of his native village.” He died as earl}* as 1 G 1 G, and he wrote 
a large number of his plays in the latter part of the preceding century. 
In his play of “ Troilus and Cressida ” he gets the Trojan and Greek 
chiefs together — somewhat improbably, perhaps — for an interview ; 
and, when they separate, Hector, the Trojan, turns to Menelaus, who 
was the husband of Helen, as 3*011 remember (and that adds to the 
improbability), and says, “ Good-night, sweet Menelaus.” Thersites, 
who is a Greek cynic or buffoon, and hates them all worse than he 
hates poison, as he goes out, says, “ Sweet draught; ” and “ draught ” 
in that connection means precisely what it does in the seventeenth 
verse of the fifteenth chapter of Matthew, where the text is, “ Do not 
ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goetli into 
the bell}*, and is cast out into the draught ?” “ Sweet draught: sweet, 
quoth ’a ! sweet sink, sweet sewer ” Shakspeare thus places in the 
mouth of Thersites sewer , sink, and privy, all coupled together, as 
the very opposite of sweet. “ In Pericles, Prince of Tyre,” Marina, 
the beautiful daughter of Pericles, is kidnapped, and taken to a 
brothel for purposes of prostitution, where, by her purity and her wit 
and wisdom, she protects herself against the influences of that vile 
place: and at last she makes an impression upon Boult, one of the 
panders of the house ; and he says, — 

“ What would you have me ? Go to the wars, would you ? where a man may 
serve seven years for the loss of a leg, and have not money enough in the end 
to buy him a wooden one ? ” 

She replies, — 

“ Do any thing but this thou doest. Empty 
Old receptacles, common sewers, of filth; 

Serve by indenture to the common hangman: 

Any of these ways are better yet than this; 


\ 


291 


For that which thou professest, a baboon, 

Could he but speak, 

Would own a name too dear.” 

What a pit}’’ Col. Waring did not live in those days ! Mark Twain 
said, when he went to the grave of Adam, 44 What a pity he could 
not have been spared to know me ! ” IVhat a pit}' Shakspeare could 
not have been spared to know Col. Waring ! Then he would not have 
put into Marina’s mouth such a malapropos speech as that, in which 
a sewer, which, according to Col. Waring, was only used for the pur¬ 
pose of carrying off clean water, is represented as a receptacle of filth. 
Then, there was old John Stow, who wrote a work called 44 A Survey 
of London,” which is the source of nearly all the information we 
have about the ancient history of that city. He says, that, as early as 
1307, the Earl of Lincoln applied to Parliament to have Fleet River 
cleaned out, because it had got choked up: and a commission was 
appointed, consisting of the constable of the Tower and the sheriff of 
the city ; and they investigated, and found it was blocked up by mills 
and other obstructions. The mill-owners, as far back as that ancient 
time 1307, had squatted down upon that river, and polluted it, and 
tanneries had filled it up with their filth; and those mills were cleared 
out. Now, my purpose was to quote from Stow, whose work was 
published in 1598, — two hundred and eighty-four years ago. It is 
current English, and it is presumed that he might have known some¬ 
thing of the meaning of the word 44 sewer.” He says, speaking of 
Fleet River, 44 but still, as if by nature intended for a common sewer , 
it wms soon choked up with filth again.” That was away back in 
1598. How far ahead of the times he was! He didn’t know, that, 
according: to Col. Waring, a sewer was not used for filth until this 
century, or until very recently; but away back in 1598 we find him 
using those words as applicable to the condition of the river nearly 
three hundred years before that time. 

There was Milton, a very good writer in his day, who wrote poetry 
and other things, and had a very competent knowledge of English. 
He was not a sanitary engineer, that I know of; but lie had a tolerably 
good knowledge of the English language. He wrote a poem called 
44 Paradise Lost,” still extant in choice English ; and when he describes 
the joy of the serpent as he discovered Eve in the morning alone among 
her flowers, dressed in but little beside her own loveliness, he says,— 

44 As one who long in populous city pent, 

Where houses thick and sewers annoy the air, 

Forth issuing on a summer’s morn, to breathe 

Among the pleasant villages and farms 

Adjoined, from each thing met conceives delight; . . . 

Such pleasure took the serpent to behold 
This flowery plat, the sweet recess of Eve, 

Thus early, thus alone.” 


292 



Dr. Johnson — not a sanitary engineer, but a man of great learn¬ 
ing, and who laid the foundation of the lexicography of the language 
— made a dictionary, and he did not dedicate it to Lord Chesterfield. 
He published it in 1755. That was a time when Col. Waring did 
not know a great deal about sewers ; and in 1755 the only definition 
that Dr. Johnson gives of the word “ sewer” is u a passage for foul 
drainage to run through.” 

Now, when there is so much wisdom embodied in the foundation 
proposition of this report as all that comes to, I think it is not neces¬ 
sary for me to pursue it further ; and I will venture, notwithstanding 
the opinion of Col. Waring, to say a brief word upon the moral as¬ 
pects of this case. I suppose that the most general proposition is, 
that no large community can exist without inconvenience to its neigh¬ 
bors, and some degree of injury. There is the liability to the out¬ 
break of disease, or to the propagation of disease, which is attendant 
upon a great community. There are noxious exhalations and gases 
that to some degree permeate the air. To live around such a city as 
Pittsburg must be very much more of an annoyance than it was in 
1755, when Braddock took his army over there to capture Fort Du 
Quesne, and didn’t take it back. There is the accumulation of the 
criminal classes, and the liability^ to predatory excursions, and many 
other things which I will not stop to enumerate. And there is this 
very common pollution of water-courses and the sea in the vicinity. 

Now, what is the rule of obligation? I take it that the plain rule 
of obligation is, that the city should take such measures to prevent these 
injuries, or to reduce them to their minimum, as ordinary diligence 
requires ; and I suppose that ordinary diligence, as applied to a city, 
is like ordinary diligence applied to an individual. Ordinary dili¬ 
gence, applied to an individual, is, that he shall do what other men of 
prudence do about the conduct of their own affairs. It is not a ques¬ 
tion whether we in Worcester are not bound to live cleanly lives, and 
not get “ between the wind and the nobility ” of our friends in Mill- 
bury, in an unclean condition; but the question is, what measure of 
obligation have w r e? what shall determine our obligation? If we do 
what cities from the beginning of time have always done, and what 
they do at the present time, with the exception of a few which you 
can count upon your fingers, we have discharged the obligation of 
ordinary diligence ; we are not guilty of negligence because we have 
omitted to do what some scientist reports is possible, and another 
scientist says is impossible ; what one set of experts, of great ability, 
I admit, says may be done, and another expert, of equal ability and 
more experience, says cannot be done, or would not be likely to suc¬ 
ceed. In other words, we are not bound to put out into the realm of 
the unusual and the untried, to penetrate and explore the regions of 


293 


the extraordinary. We have done with the sewage of Worcester 
what every other city T has done since Rome emptied its sewage into 
the Cloaca Maxima ; and I know not what other ancient examples I 
might cite, down through all the ages to the present time, and what 
all the cities on the face of the earth are doing at the present time, 
except a few that you can count, as I have said, op your fingers, and 
those under circumstances where it is a matter of debate what suc¬ 
cess they have attained, — and I shall show you before I get through, 
from the reports of the State Board of Health, that they have 
attained no success whatever that would have any bearing upon this 
case. I shall show you that the best of them failed to purify their 
waters, and they leave them more impure than the Blackstone is when 
we have done with it. It will appear, before I finish my argument, 
that the State Board of Health have apparently overlooked one im¬ 
portant consideration ; and that is, the probability of a result being 
attained that will be at all commensurate with the expense, or that 
wdll reduce the impurity of the Blackstone to an}' degree, so that it 
shall be substantially better than it is now. 

I say, the rule is in exact analogy with the rule of law that applies 
to individuals: adopt the precautions that other people of common 
and average prudence adopt under similar circumstances, and it is 
grounded — if there were any need of a more general proposition as 
underlying it — it is grounded upon the proposition that every bod}'' 
has reason to expect his neighbor will do as other prudent men do, 
and will guard himself upon the supposition that he will do that, and 
will not expect him to fail to do it. It is according to reasonable 
expectation ; and the rule that applies to individuals must apply to 
communities, and no other reasonable rule can apply. You will find 
Worcester doing exactly what other cities have done, and nothing 
further. There are many moral and many physical evils in this 
world, and they are not all preventable. “ Use your own so as not 
to injure others,” quotes my friend from Mayor Verry. Nobody 
doubts that maxim. But how does my friend apply it in his own 
practice? How do the courts apply it? That you shall not use your 
own at all? No: use your own as other men of common prudence 
use their own, and then you have made the application of that rule. 
You have a horse that is spirited, and, uncontrolled, is a dangerous 
animal. If he gets loose, he may do more injury in five minutes 
than all your accumulated means can settle, or the means of ten men 
like you. There is the pent-up power capable of producing such 
effects if it once escapes from your control. Have you not a right to 
use that horse? Leather may break, harness-makers are not infalli¬ 
ble, the breeching may not hold ; but, if you use the prudence of ordi¬ 
nary men, vou have discharged your liability. Lou have used your 
own so as not to injure another, within the meaning of the law. 


I want to say a few words upon the legal aspect of this case. My 
learned friend quoted several cases. I do not know yet whether they 
claim that we are violating any law or not. 1 am not able to say. 
There is one case before the case of Merrifield v. Worcester, which 
I desire to cite, as leading up to the position taken in Merri field v. 
Worcester; and that is Wheeler v. Worcester. In that case, the 
plaintiff complained that the city” had filled up Mill Brook in such a 
way as to set the water back upon his premises and injure them. It 
was referred to a veiy able commission for the ascertainment of the 
facts to be reported to the court, consisting of John Wells, Charles 
S. Storrow, and Asaph Wood. The case is reported in the 10th 
Allen, p. 591. That commission made an elaborate report, and 
found that the drainage from the sewers had done something, but not 
much; that the wash from the streets had done a great deal towards 
filling up ; that the building of the railroad bridges had done more ; 
and that the building of the bridge on Front Street had also added to 
the evil. I onl} T desire to call attention to the opinion of the court, 
which was given bj T the late Justice Colt. It says, — 

“ The plaintiff is a riparian proprietor upon Mill Brook, a natural water¬ 
course flowing through the city of Worcester, and has the right to have it flow 
through and from his premises in a free and unobstructed channel. He may 
maintain this action against those parties who interfere with that right, or 
against any one of them who by his unlawful act contributes substantially to 
the injury which he suffers, unless the party or parties charged with creating 
the obstruction can claim the protection of the statutes known as the Mill Acts, 
or those other statutes which provide compensation in a particular mode for 
injuries done by public authority in the exercise of the right of eminent domain. 
If the injury is produced by the joint action of several parties,” etc. 

And then it goes on at considerable length, which I will not read, 
until we get to p. G02, where the court says, — 

“ Of these co-operating causes, thus briefly indicated, the case requires us to 
consider only those which it is alleged the city is responsible for. 

“1. The surface-wash from the streets. This is stated to be incidental to 
the growth of the city and the construction of the streets. It finds its way 
naturally into Mill Brook, which furnishes the only channel for the accumu¬ 
lated surface water of the vicinity. No new water-course has been diverted 
into it. It receives no more water than would be collected by the natural sur¬ 
face of the land; but, by the changed uses to which a dense population have 
appropriated it, the soil of the numerous streets has been more rapidly carried 
into the stream. To hold the defendants liable to an action from such course 
would be to say that the owner of land must be restricted to such uses of it as 
will not, by the ordinary action of the elements, cause the soil to wash in and 
fill to any increased extent the adjacent brooks and streams. The injury which 
results to the plaintiff from this cause must be regarded as damnum absque 
injuria. There is another answer to this claim of the plaintiff. The city, by 
their proper authorities and agents, are charged with the public duty of con¬ 
structing and maintaining the public streets. They must construct and main- 


295 


tain them in snch places and in such manner as the public convenience and 
necessity require. They must provide for and dispose of the surface water 
which falls upon them; and, in the discharge of this duty, neither the city nor 
their agents can be proceeded against in an action of tort for damage sustained 
by a private citizen. In the construction of streets, highways, and bridges, it 
is the right of the public to take all private property necessary, and do all other 
necessary incidental damage to the individual. The laws of the Common¬ 
wealth provide compensation for such injury; but the remedy must be sought 
in the manner pointed out by the statutes, and not by action of tort against the 
city or their agents. If the public work is built so as to cause unnecessary 
damage by want of reasonable care and skill in its construction, then the right 
of eminent domain will not protect the parties by whom the work is done, but 
they may be liable in tort for such unnecessary injury. The case does not find 
that the surface-wash from the streets was not the necessary and inevitable 
consequence of their construction, or that the streets were laid out and built 
without reasonable care and skill.” 

That point I shall elaborate later on. The point of that case is, 
that the cit}- is not liable for the surface-wash of its streets washing 
into Mill Brook. The question of sewers they did not pass upon, 
because it did not become necessaiy. I now refer to the case of 
Merrifield v. Worcester, 110 Mass., p. 21G, which my friend sa}’s, 
oil p. 16 of the report, “will very likely be referred to as much 
upon the other side as this.” My friend referred to it for the pur¬ 
pose of showing, apparent^, that it decided, in the first place, 
that, for diverting Mill Brook, under the statute of 18G7, his proper 
action was by petition under that statute. Nobody disputed that. 
The court adverted to that incidentally, and neither the counsel 
for the plaintiff nor the counsel for the defendant made any ques¬ 
tion about that. He also referred to it upon this other point, that 
if the sewers were not properly laid the city might be liable. 
Nobody disputed that. But that case decided an important ques¬ 
tion, which was not alluded to by either of the learned counsel 
on the other side ; and the principal purpose of it was to decide 
that question. Mr. Merrifield brought this action against the city 
of Worcester, and alleged “that the defendants, on April 5, 1861, 
and on divers days and times since, ‘ wrongfully and unjustly cast, 
carried, and deposited, and caused to be cast, carried, and depos¬ 
ited, into said Mill Brook and the waters thereof, at points in the 
channel thereof above and higher than the works of the plaintiff, 
great quantities of filth, dirt, gravel, refuse material, matter dis¬ 
charged from sewers, privies, water-closets, stables, sinks, and streets, 
and divers other noxious materials and ingredients,’ by reason of 
which the water became greatly corrupted and unfit for use in the 
plaintiff’s business; ‘said water so corrupted, among other things, 
corroding the plaintiff’s boilers and engines and fixtures, causing an 
adhesion of sediment and other materials to said boilers, and greatly 


296 


increasing the expense of making the necessary amount of steam for 
said works, and greatly increasing the danger of explosion in said 
boilers, and causing thereby frequent breakages in the engine fix¬ 
tures and works, and deterioration thereof, and causing great expense 
in the repair thereof and in the interruption to the running ot the 
works, thereby causing great injury to all of the plaintiff’s establish¬ 
ment ; ’ and that ‘ the waters of the brook so corrupted are thereby 
rendered so offensive that it is difficult and expensive to procure 
competent engineers and workmen to operate said works.’ ’ 

In other words, he said, that, by reason of the sewers, they had 
committed a nuisance in that water; that is, an offence describing a 
nuisance. Now, the court says, — 

“ From the report, we infer lhat the ground of liability is that the dirt, filth, 
and other materials were carried into the stream by means of certain drains or 
sewers constructed under authority therefor conferred upon the city council by 
the charter.” 

He then cites several statutes : — 

“ The statute of 1867, chap. 106, authorized the taking of Mill Brook and the 
entire diversion of its waters from the channel by which it passes the plain¬ 
tiff’s works. So far as he has suffered damage from any proper exercise of the 
power and rights conferred by that Act, he must seek his remedy by a different 
proceeding from this, under the special provisions of the Act itself. But the 
stream had not been so diverted at the time when this action was brought, and 
it does not appear that the injuries complained of were the result of any pro¬ 
ceedings under that Act.” 

Now the point of fact appears : — 

“It appears that in 1850, more than twenty years before the date of the 
writ in this case, a drain or sewer was constructed, by order of the city council, 
discharging from Thomas Street into Mill Brook, a short distance above the 
works of the plaintiff. [You remember that Thomas Street runs down from 
Main Street to this Mill Brook. This sewer of 1850 extended up to Main 
Street ] This drain extended back to, and ran a short distance along, Main 
Street. In 1857, and at various times subsequently, this drain has been ex¬ 
tended farther along Main Street; and drains running along several other 
streets have been connected with it. The plaintiff contends that the injurious 
effects of the drainage into the brook have thus been constantly increasing, 
down to the time of action brought. This question, so far as material, it is 
agreed shall be submitted to assessors.” 

In other words, Worcester then had a sj^stem of sewers which 
included Thomas Street, Main Street, and various other streets, 
emptying into Mill Brook. Mr. Mcrrifield was a riparian proprietor; 
he had just the same rights as any Millbury riparian proprietor had, 
— no greater, no less; he had just as much right as any or all of 
them. The fact that he lived in Worcester did not alter the case. 
The court then proceed to discuss the question of his rights against 


297 


the city of Worcester b} r reason of their emptying sewage into Mill 
Brook; and the proposition of Mr. Justice Wells — whose early 
death took from the bench a judge who had already established his 
reputation as a very eminent jurist, who gave as much promise of a 
career of unsurpassed brilliancy as any judge who ever sat there — 
was this: — 

“ The right of which the plaintiff alleges a violation, is not that of acquired 
property in possession. It is not an absolute right, but a natural one, qualified 
and limited, like all natural rights, by the existence of like rights in others. 
It is incident merely to his ownership of land through which the stream has 
its course. As such owner he has the right to enjoy the continued flow of the 
stream, to use its force, and to make limited and temporary appropriation of its 
waters. These rights are held in common with all others having lands border¬ 
ing upon the same stream; but his enjoyment must necessarily be according to 
his opportunity, prior to those below him, subsequent to those above. It fol¬ 
low's that all such rights are liable to be modified and abridged in the enjoy¬ 
ment, by the exercise by others of their own rights; and, so far as they are 
thus abridged, the loss is damnum absque iujuria. . . . 

“ So the natural right of the plaintiff to have the water descend to him in its 
pure state, fit to be used for the various purposes to which he may have occa¬ 
sion to apply it, must yield to the equal right in those who happen to be above 
him. Their use of the stream for mill-purposes, for irrigation, watering cattle, 
and the manifold purposes for which they may lawfully use it, will tend to 
render the water more or less impure. Cultivating and fertilizing the lands 
bordering on the stream, and in which are its sources, their occupation by farm¬ 
houses and other erections, will unavoidably cause impurities to be carried into 

the stream. As the lands are subdivided, and their occupation and use become 

* 

multifarious, these causes will be rendered more operative, and their effects 
more perceptible. The water may thus be rendered unfit for many uses for 
which it had before been suitable; but, so far as that condition results only from 
reasonable use of the stream in accordance with the common right, the lower 
riparian proprietor has no remedy.” 

Now we come to the point that seems to me to settle this whole 
question of the legal right of Worcester to do what it is doing, inde¬ 
pendently of the statute of 1867 : — 

“When the population becomes dense, and towns or villages gather along its 
banks, the stream naturally and necessarily suffers still greater deterioration, 
lloads and streets crossing it, or running by its side, with their gutters and 
sluices discharging into it their surface water collected from over large spaces, 
and carrying with it in suspension the loose and light material that is thus 
swept off, are abundant sources of impurity, against which the law affords no 
redress. . . . 

“It may readily be supposed that a small stream like Mill Brook, with a 
considerable city like Worcester upon either bank, and the adjacent lands de¬ 
scending rapidly towards its bed, would cease to preserve its waters from im¬ 
purity, and become valueless for any purpose, except that of drainage, and the 
creation of power by its head and fall.” 

In other words, the court recognize that a city built upon a small 
stream will condemn that stream to the purposes of sewerage. 


298 


“All this may result, even though no unjustifiable act be done to effect it. 
To enable a riparian owner to maintain an action for damages, he must show, 
not only that the defendant has done some act which tends to injure the 
stream, and which he has no legal right to do, or which is in excess of his legal 
right so as to be an unreasonable use thereof, but also that the detriment of 
which the plaintiff complains is the result of that cause.” 

Then he goes on to cite Child v. Boston to the point, that, if the 
sewer is laid out and constructed with reasonable skill and diligence, 
the defendants are not liable ; and so the court decided, in that case, 
that the city of Worcester was not liable to Mr. Merrifield for pollut¬ 
ing that water by reason of a system of sewers that extended back 
into Main Street, through Main Street, and received lateral sewers 
from several other streets. That case covers, it seems to me, the 
whole proposition as to our common-law right. 

I now desire to refer, for a moment, to the case of Washburn & 
Moen Manufacturing Company v. City of Worcester, 116 Mass. 458. 
This action was brought after the construction of the sewerage system 
under the statute of 1867. The plaintiffs owned this mill-pond down 
there at Quinsigamond Village ; and they said, by reason of the con¬ 
struction of this sewerage system, that pond had become filled up 
with filth, and “ great quantities of sewage matter and filth, both solid 
and liquid;” and so the}' alleged that a public nuisance and a pri¬ 
vate nuisance were created in their pond. It was a bill in equity ; and 
Senator Hoar and Judge Nelson argued for the plaintiffs, and the 
late Judge Thomas and Mr. Williams for the defendant. Chief 
Justice Gray says, — 

“Where a city, or a board of municipal officers, is authorized by the Legis¬ 
lature to lay out and construct common sewers and drains, and provision is made 
by statute for the assessment, under special proceedings, of damages to par¬ 
ties whose estates are thereby injured, the city is not liable to an action at law 
or bill in equity for injuries which are the necessary result of the exercise of 
the powers conferred by the Legislature. But if by an excess of the powers 
granted, or negligence in the mode of carrying out the system legally adopted, 
or in omitting to take due precautions to guard against consequences of its op¬ 
eration, a nuisance is created, the city may be liable to indictment in behalf of 
the public, or to suit by individuals suffering special damage. . . . 

“ The case at bar, as now presented, does not require the court to define the 
limits of the application of either of these rules to the discharge of the Mill- 
brook sewer into the Blackstone River. The only acts charged against the 
city of Worcester in the bill before us are the converting of the channel of Mill 
Brook into a sewer, and the opening of other sewers and drains into the same. 
These acts were expressly authorized by the stat. of 1867, chap. 106. Butler v. 
Worcester, 112 Mass. The only further allegations in the bill consist of a con¬ 
clusion of fact, that a nuisance to the plaintiff was thereby created; and a con¬ 
clusion of law, that the acts of the city were unauthorized and in violation of 
the plaintiff’s rights. The bill does not allege any negligence of the city, either 
in the manner in which the sewage was discharged from the mouth of the 


299 


sewer, or in omitting to take proper precautions to purify it. The necessary 
result is, that the demurrer must be sustained .” 

1 hat case decided that whatever was the natural and necessary con¬ 
sequence of doing the things provided for by the statute of 18G7, lay- 
ing out Mill Brook as a sewer, and discharging other sewers into it, 
there was no remedy for it unless it was under the Act itself. That 
settles that question. The court say that the plaintiffs did not allege 
that the defendants were guilty of an}’ negligence either in the con¬ 
struction of the sewers or in omitting to take proper precautions to 
purify the sewage. Now I want to inquire what that means, for I 
apprehend that some stress will be laid upon that. The principle is 
universal, and my friends and I do not disagree about it, — it is not 
possible that we should disagree, — that when the power is conferred 
upon a corporation or otherwise, to construct works, to take land and 
construct works, or to construct works without taking land, the}' are 
bound in the construction of those works to exercise ordinary care ; 
they must not be guilty of negligence. If such a work is constructed 
or maintained negligently, it is a nuisance: you liaVe a right to abate 
it. If they fail, in managing or maintaining it, to exercise ordinary 
and reasonable care, then so far forth it is a nuisance. There is no 
use in disputing about it: it is well settled. Now, they did not allege 
in that bill that we had been guilty of any negligence in constructing 
the sewers. They could not; because we had employed the best engi¬ 
neers to construct them, according to the best modes of engineering. 
Nobody disputes it at all. Then, we had a right to construct and 
maintain them. We were not guilty of negligence in omitting to 
take proper precautions in purifying the sewage. Now, that raises 
the question, what is the meaning of negligence and ordinary diligence ? 
I have discussed it in another connection perhaps sufficiently, but I 
will touch upon it here. 

We were bound to do what cities similarly situated have ordinarily 
done in that behalf; and, if we did that, we exercised ordinary care. 
They did not allege, because they could not allege and prove, that 
we had not taken proper precautions to purify the sewage. There 
W’ere no methods known at that time ; and I believe you will think, 
after the testimony of Mr. Worthen, and after the contradictory 
reports of Mr. Waring and the State Board of Health, that to-day the 
method is not invented to purify sewage. There were no methods 
known by which it could be purified ; or, if there were, that would 
not impose upon us the obligation to adopt them. The obligation 
would not begin to bear and press upon us to adopt such a measure 
until the adoption of such a measure had become the ordinary, the 
, natural, the general course adopted by cities of ordinary prudence in 
the management of their sewage. Can there be any dispute about 


300 


this proposition among lawyers or among intelligent men? It is not 
to be decided whether we have taken proper precautions, by calling a 
few experts, more or less eminent, to say the}" guess it could be done 
this way or that way. Has the method of purifying sewage now 
become so general in this climate and in this country, so pronounced 
a success — is it adopted everywhere, in such a way that the omission 
to adopt it is a failure to exercise that ordinary and common pru¬ 
dence and skill which is the measure of the legal obligation? To 
state the proposition is enough; to state the contrary proposition is 
to refute it, — to sa} T that } t ou fail in ordinary diligence if 3011 do not 
resort to extraordinary measures, is a contradiction in terms. How 
would it be if 3 r ou were driving your horse, and your horse — which is 
a tractable animal, and can be driven by a good driver — gets fright¬ 
ened and runs awa} T , and you show that you did what everybody does 
under such circumstances when a horse is frightened by an unusual 
thing? Suppose, now, somebod}" should sa} T , “Oh, but you didn’t 
adopt Mr. Jones’s patent method of throwing a horse down, or of 
picking him up and putting him into the carriage, when he runs 
away! If you had adopted that patent method and appliance, a 
model of which he has on file in the patent office, which shows how it 
might have been done, } t ou would have used due care. We can call 
half a dozen experts here to sa} r that that thing might be done ; and 
how do you pretend that you are using ordinary diligence and skill in 
driving your horse, when 3-011 didn’t adopt that patent? You ought 
to put that on your carriage, and then you would not be liable.” 
The answer is the answer of common sense: “I did what other men 
do who drive horses. I was a good driver; I learned how to drive 
when I was a boy; I had a perfectly good harness ; and I laid out 
my best strength to hold that horse, and used my best skill to manage 
him. He was a well-broken horse; but this unusual thing alarmed 
him, and set in motion those powers which were beyond my control.” 
Now, do you say, that in not adopting this patent process of purify¬ 
ing sewage, which one expert said would work, and the other said 
would not work but would be a failure, we did not use ordinar}’ skill 
and diligence? The same rule applies to cities which applies to 
individuals. We have adopted the same measures that have been 
adopted by every city that was ever organized, from the beginning 
down to the present time, with the exception of a few which you can 
name and count by the units without going into the tens, and they 
within a very few years. Not a city on this continent, without 
exception, has ever adopted any thing of the kind, unless you take 
this little sewer over here at the Mystic, which was adopted in obedi¬ 
ence to an Act of the last Legislature, and which you are modifying 
by this Legislature. Nobody knows or pretends that it is a success, 
and it is on an exceedingl}" small scale. 


301 


Now, the petitioners come in here and say, “Oh! we have got a 
patent process; and we call Mr. Waring: and Mr. Waring not only 
knows all the law, and all the ethics, and all the ever}' thing, bnt 
he knows what the English language is ; he knows that Shakspeare, he 
knows that old Stow, he knows that Milton, he knows that Dr. John¬ 
son, didn’t know any thing about the language, but it was all reserved 
to George E. Waring, colonel, and he knows all about it; and if you 
don’t adopt his plan to purify your sewage, why, then you are guilty 
of negligence.” Now, would anybody allege under such circum¬ 
stances, and undertake to prove before a jury, that we were guilty of 
negligence? From time immemorial the city of Worcester has 
emptied its sewage into the Blackstone River through Mill Brook. 
At first, the impurities were emptied out upon the surface, and carried 
along by the street-gutters and other channels to the brook. Later, 
sewers were constructed, beginning with a single sewer, which was 
gradually extended, and received other sewers, until, in 1867, this 
system was adopted ; and it has become the elaborate system it is. 
But the same rules of law will apply. 

But my friend, Mr. Morse will say undoubtedly, “You have no 
right to commit a nuisance, public or private ; and I will cite Badger 
v. Boston.” I see he has put into his argument several cases that he 
did not cite ; and I was surprised that he did not, because there were 
some things in the opinions that might seem to make in his favor. 
He refers to Haskell v. New Bedford, Boston Rolling-mills v. Cam¬ 
bridge, and Brayton v. Fall River. He will say that we have no 
right to commit a public or a private nuisance. Gentlemen, I do not 
propose to discuss a question that I do not understand to be settled 
exactly. I do not know what the court are going to say when the 
question comes before them. Suppose a right is granted to a corpo¬ 
ration or municipality or otherwise, to do a certain thing, and the 
necessary and natural consequence of doing that thing is to create a 
public nuisance ; what then ? Are you to read into the statute the 
proviso that you are not to do it, although you have express authority 
by the statute to do it? That question I do not understand to have 
been decided. The court, however, has decided, that, if you can do 
the thing authorized without committing a public nuisance, then, if 
you commit a public nuisance, you are violating the law. Undoubt¬ 
edly that is so. 

Now, I shall not discuss this question, because I shall argue that 
no public nuisance has been proved here affecting the public health. 
I want to cite the statute of 1878 ; but before I come to that, how¬ 
ever, I desire to say a word in regard to these cases. Take the case 
of Badger v . Boston ; that is as good for illustration as any of them. 
That was a case in which a urinal was authorized by statute to be 


♦ 


302 


constructed, with a provision for assessing damages to parties injured 
such construction ; and a man brought his petition to recover for 
damages, alleging, and offering to prove, that it was a nuisance. 
That proposition was broad enough to include two propositions : first, 
that it was a nuisance by reason of the necessaiy result of construct¬ 
ing a urinal, and, if that was so, he would be entitled to damages ; 
but it also included the other proposition, that it was a nuisance by 
reason of negligently constructing or maintaining it. And if it was 
a nuisance, because of negligent construction or maintenance, the 
remedy was not by a petition for damages, but by an action of tort. 
The court sa}', in effect, that it was not, as a matter of law, a nui¬ 
sance to construct the urinal, and it might be that the nuisance 
resulted from the negligent maintenance of it, or b}' an improper 
construction of it; and, in this case, his remedy was b}’ proceedings 
other than petition for damages. 

In regard to the cases of Haskell v. New Bedford, and Brayton v. 
Fall River, those were cases where the cities of New Bedford and 
Fall River respectively had the right to construct sewers along streets. 
Thc}^ debouched them into the private docks of individuals, and 
created a nuisance there in such docks ; and the court said the}’ had 
no right to do it. Those cases are distinguishable from Merrifield v. 
Worcester; they were not on a small running stream on which a city 
was built; the facts are entirely different, and it cannot be possible 
that they overrule Merrifield v. Worcester. Take the case of Haskell 
v. New Bedford. That case (108 Mass. 208) was decided in 1871 : 
Merrifield v, Worcester was decided in 1872 by the same court, and 
by the same judges. It is not to be supposed that the judges did not 
know of the prior decision. If the}- had intended to overrule it, the} r 
would have said so. It is, therefore, undoubtedly true that they did 
not intend to overrule it at all. But if Haskell v. New Bedford is at 
all in controversy with the case I have cited, Merrifield v. AYorcester, 
then, upon familiar principles', the later case overrules the earlier one. 
Brayton v. Fall River was decided in 1873, Washburn & Moen 
Manufacturing Company v. Worcester in 1875 ; now, if there is an} T 
controversy between those cases, the later case overrules the earlier. 
There is none stated ; the court consisted largely of the same judges ; 
it is not likely they were ignorant of the previous decisions. There 
is undoubtedly a distinction between the two; and one obvious dis¬ 
tinction is, that one related to the sea, the other related to a running 
stream, and the rights of riparian proprietors below. 

This case of the Boston Rolling-mills v. Cambridge, 117 Mass. 
396, has no relation to this case in any way. There was a private 
channel owned by private individuals, a canal which they had dug, 
and of which they owned the fee ; and I know not what right Cam- 




303 


bridge had to empty 7 sewage into it at all. friend Mr. Morse 
alludes to this case out at M 3 'stic Brook, and sa}'s that it has been 
held to be constitutional b}’ a single justice. I don’t know whether 
it has been held to be constitutional bj r a single justice, or not: I am 
not aware that it has been argued and decided. It appears that the 
parties agreed upon a decree, so that there was no occasion to decide 
upon the constitutionality of the statute: it is not now necessary to 
discuss whether the Act of 1881 is constitutional or unconstitutional. 
M} t friend says that is a stronger case than that against the city of 
Worcester, because it was an artificial channel. It seems to me that 
is a strange non sequitur. This is a natural channel into which, the 
court sa} T in Merrifield v. Worcester, we have a right to empty our 
sewage. Thej" have decided we have a right to, as against any 
riparian proprietors ; but that was a channel, as I understand, by 
which Boston undertook to take, by an artificial conduit or sewer, a 
stream that polluted their water-supply, around into lower INtystic 
Pond ; and then, after the Legislature had granted that right, it pro¬ 
vided that they should purify it. The cases are entirety distinct and 
different. One was the right of a city upon a natural stream, on 
which it has grown up from infancy; the other was the right of a 
city to corrupt, b} T a sewer that the Legislature had authorized it to 
build, a pond to which it had no other relation than that created by 
tne sewer. 

My friends sa} T the burden does not rest upon Millbury to show how 
this evil should be avoided. No : if Worcester is doing }t>u any 
damage b} r acts which it has no legal right to do, if it is violating 
any law, whj’, then, it does not rest upon you to show how we shall 
stop it, I admit. But when you say we are guilty of some negli¬ 
gence, that we are doing something that we have no right to do, then 
the burden does rest upon 3*011 to show that Tve are ; and, if we are 
doing what everybody else does, it is upon you to show how that 
result can be avoided. We claim, therefore, that the city is in the 
exercise of its legal rights, and the proposal is to deprive it of its 
legal rights. We say that the statute of 18G7 is in the nature of a 
grant of a franchise ; or, rather, it is the identical thing. On that 
statute we have laid out a million and a half of money. You cannot 
take away the rights you grant to a railroad corporation, in which it 
has invested money : it would be a violation of the Constitution of the 
United States, against the impairment of the obligation of contracts, 
but for the fact, that long ago, before any of the railroads received \ 
their charters, there was a general law which applies as a condition, 
cnvinor the Legislature the right. There was no condition annexed to 
the statute of 18G7. Can you now proceed to take away the grant 
of that franchise? Is it a constitutional position? 




304 


I do not propose to stop to discuss this constitutional question, or 
any question of constitutional law: I commend it to your careful con¬ 
sideration. It may be that my friends can find the authority for this 
measure in that general power of police regulation, which is vague, I 
admit, in its limits ; but, it seems to me, this action exceeds any lim¬ 
its that have ever been reached by any valid legislative enactment, as 
yet. It may be clear that this authority can be derived from that 
power of the Legislature to impose local taxation for local benefits ; 
but such taxation is usually imposed upon the persons that are bene¬ 
fited, and not on other persons. I submit that it is difficult to find 
the legal and constitutional ground on which you can found this 
statute. 

That is all I care to say upon that branch of the subject. We sub¬ 
mit, that at common law, by the decision of Merrifield v. Worcester, 
we have the right to empty our sewage into this stream, even if it 
causes pollution in the Blackstone River, because to do it necessarily 
causes that pollution to some extent; and, to the extent that it is 
necessarily caused, our right is extended and proceeds. 

But, gentlemen, there is another proposition ; and I must hurry on. 
Independently of the constitutional questions, there are questions of 
public good faith. Nobody will doubt that in 1867 this whole ques¬ 
tion of sewage purification was in its infancy so far as an} r practical 
solution of the problem was concerned, whatever they may think now 
as to its present condition. Worcester has put a million and a half 
of money into her sewerage S 3 *stem, and it will take another million and 
a half if you adopt this scheme and we adopt the State Board scheme, 
including the value of such parts of the sewerage system as will have 
practically to be abandoned. This large sum of money they have 
put into it, and there are considerations of good faith involved. That 
money was expended, that outlay was made, upon the faith of our 
people in the permanency of that policy on which the statute of 1867 
was adopted. And that is an appeal that I think will not be made 
to an} T committee of this Legislature or to this Legislature in vain. 

Now, if there exists a nuisance here which the public health requires 
the abatement of, then I sa) r it should be undertaken by the State 
itself. One gentleman of the Committee asks whether it? would not 
be a bad precedent for the State to undertake to dispose of the sewage 
of the city. If a public nuisance is created there, the precedent is 
already established in the case of the Boston Back Bay here, the 
purification of the Church-street district, I think. That expense was 
indeed imposed upon the city of Boston, but it was only a single dis¬ 
trict of the city of Boston which was directly benefited. The Legis¬ 
lature imposed the expense of it upon the city of Boston, but for the 
direct benefit of a district of the city of Boston. A portion of the 


\ 


305 


public which received a peculiar but indirect benefit was selected to 
bear the burden, but no reason in the nature of things can be sug¬ 
gested why any larger portion of the public might not have been 
selected to bear the burden. 

In Talbot v. Hudson, in 16 Gra} T , 417, the case of the Concord and 
Sudbury meadows, the improvement of those meadows at one time 
became an object of public interest to such an extent that it was 
thought proper to pass a statute, and to take the rights of the mill- 
owners for the benefit of the public, at the expense of the public ; and 
it was done, and a provision made for compensation of the mill-owners 
by the State. If an improvement, whether by draining and bringing 
into cultivation tracts of marshy land, or by purifying water-courses, 
or otherwise providing for the increased salubrity of a region, is of 
such a nature as to be a benefit to a large number of people, such 
improvement is so far a public improvement as to be properly charge¬ 
able to public expenditures. So that the precedent, so far as that 
goes, is established. If we are doing what the law gives us a right 
to do, and thereby a nuisance is created, why, then, there exists an 
exigency for the public to abate the nuisance at the public expense, 
and not at the expense of Worcester. 

But, gentlemen, the evidence in this case falls far short of showing 
an}' public nuisance substantially affecting the public health. Do not 
misunderstand me. I have been quoted by the local papers, which 
you undoubtedly.do not read, as saying that I proposed to defend 
this case on the ground that there was no offence there ; that the river 
was no more impure than it was thirty or forty years ago. That is 
not a proposition that I ever maintained anywhere, and do not propose 
to here or anvwhere else. It is a fact that the river has been growing; 
more polluted year by year for a great many years ; and, in proportion 
to the rapid growth of the community there in Worcester and below, 
the increase in this impurity has gone on more rapidly. 

But this is a question whether there is an}' evidence here to estab¬ 
lish to your minds that we are committing, by that sewage, a nuisance 
substantially affecting the public health. This is the Committee on 
Public Health. Now, there may be any degree of nuisance. It is a 
nuisance to one man to hear a Lancashire bag-pipe, and it is a nui¬ 
sance to another man to hear a hand-organ, while still another man 
dotes on a hand-organ. It is a nuisance to come into the presence of 
some men on account of their offensive breath ; and a person of sensi¬ 
tive nerves finds nuisances in his path all along through life. A stream 
may be offensive : it may even rise to the character of a nuisance in 
one sense, in that it is offensive, that it emits smells, that it is offen¬ 
sive to a great many people, so that the causes of that nuisance may 
be indictable, and still it may not be a nuisance affecting the public 
health. The question here is what this evidence tends to show. 


306 


Well, they called several witnesses ; but I am not going to dwell 
upon their evidence. I will relieve you as soon as I can ; but, as I 
did not make any opening, I must say all I have to say now. They 
called Nathan H. Greenwood: he lives near Burling Mills; his 
mother and his aunt are not well; his mother is seventy-six years old, 
and has been suffering from debility a good many years. His aunt is 
seventy, and she was very sick last fall. His cows, when they are 
very thirsty, will drink the water of the river, not otherwise. George 
D. Chase, he works for Morse: the hands in the mill cuss the river 
like any thing. Now, that is very curious. We find that in Morse’s 
mill the hands curse and swear like the arniy in Flanders, which 
swore terribl}'. They swear about this river. It is a curious thing, 
but Mr. Morse says it was a subject of prayer in the churches! 
Strange what opposite effects the impurity of the Blackstone River 
produces ! At Morse’s mill it stimulates profanity ; in the churches 
it promotes piety and prayer. I suppose that it will remain forever 
unsettled how the balance stands, — whether the impurity of the Black- 
stone River has on the whole been conducive to profanity, or on the 
whole has advanced the interests of piety and prayer. Then this 
man tells about Harrington, who is eighty-one years old, and his 
aunt died there at ninety-two. She was cut off at the early age of 
ninety-two; and she lived within a few feet of Morse’s pond, right 
in the midst of this pollution. It is perfectly clear what killed her. 

Levi L. Whitney, he is one of the selectmen of Millbury, a good 
specimen of vigor and health. He tells the story about the dead 
fish : he is brought here to originate a fish story. Well, we happened 
to have Mayor Pratt down there from Worcester on that daj r ; and, if 
there is anybod}’ that can beat Mayor Pratt at a fish story, he has got 
to get up exceedingly early in the morning. You know that James 
Russell Lowell said in one of his poems, k ‘ You have got to get up 
airly if you mean to take in God,” and so you have got to get up 
exceedingly early if you are going to tell a fish story that will beat 
Mayor Pratt. But they bring this man to tell a fish story. It 
appears that when the river was very low, on a hot day in August, 
down below Morse’s mill, there was an abundance of dead fish float¬ 
ing around. The quantity we do not know about, but they make it 
very large. But you will remember that the sewage had been going 
down there before and afterwards, and yet that is the only instance 
of such an occurrence, and that is the only place on the river where 
the thing ever occurred. If we had had at that time our friend’s 
scheme of intermittent-modified-patent-what-do-you-call-it downward 
filtration, and this thing had happened, it might have been attributa¬ 
ble to the sewage, because it might have happened on a day when 
there was some intermission in the filtration ; but the thing occurred 


807 


on a solitary occasion, although the sewage, like the river itself, 
flowed on forever. Dr. Walcott’s scheme hadn’t been adopted at all. 
But why didn’t this mortality of fishes occur at some other time and 
place? The cause was operative all the time. Why was the effect 
so singular? But fish died in the river on that Sunday in August, 
and on no other da}’. And that is solemnly paraded here as a fact 
of great significance ! There were also twenty musquash died up there 
one afternoon, a week or two ago. They died right there in the 
Blackstone River; but it appeared in the papers that a man shot 
them. That fish story was lugged in as a make-weight; but the 
failure to connect it with the sewage is complete. 

Then they called Samuel E. Hull: he was sick last summer,—I 
knew a good many people who were sick last summer: I was sick 
myself, but I didn’t go near that river. Thomas Wheelock said that 
two years ago this winter, and a year ago, the schools were largely 
affected with canker-rash, so much so that there was talk of closing 
the schools. We have proved by the documentary evidence that 
there was no falling-off in school attendance. I take it that the sta¬ 
tistics of school attendance are evidence of school attendance. There 
was no way to dodge that, there was no way to hedge against that. 
The official returns of school attendance do show the attendance of 
the schools with some degree of trustworthiness ; although, of course, 
the death-rate doesn’t show any thing about the health-rate. 

Then they call Rev. Philip Y. Smith. He tells of several cases of 
sickness down there (his evidence is on pp. 59-65) in Saundersville, 
after the river had passed Millbury and received the water of Single¬ 
tary Brook, and after all the settling in the various ponds, when I 
submit the sewage must be ail lost to any perception. He tells about 
one school that was reduced to six members, and one up in Grafton 
which was reduced as low as fifteen; and it appears there was a 
great reduction in the attendance at the schools in other parts of the 
town. I will not go over this, for I do not wish to detain you ; but I 
submit that there is not a community in this Commonwealth, that 
extends over as large a space as that to which this evidence applies, 
where at least as striking a story could not be framed. I submit to 
the candor of this Committee, that you could, upon short notice, if 
you could get the people enlisted with any common motive to assist 
you, without any dishonesty, without any making of evidence, make 
out as strong a case against any community in this Commonwealth. 

Then they called Dr. Wilmot; and Dr. Wilmot’s evidence is on 
p. 65. Now, Dr. Wilmot is a very bright man ; and if anybody can 
paint any thing, he can paint it. He knows how to paint it; and 
this is one of those cases where it all depends upon the painting 
power of the witness. He has got a good deal of this power of word 



308 


painting, and he can make any river look as black as Phlegethon or 
the river St} T x. It is all a matter of imagination. When } r ou hear 
about the “exhalations of the stream,” it is the man’s power of 
metaphor; it is in his command of language ; it is not in the stream. 
But where are your facts? What effects have been produced? He 
says that there was a mild typhoid fever prevailing there ; and, when 
you come to particular cases, there were two sisters in Rockdale, 
where a pond had been drawn off, and the bottom exposed : they 
were right over that pond which had been drawn off. Then, he sa 3 ’s 
that there were several other cases, where he would saj^, “ I think it 
was living by that nasty, stinking river.” He tells about his wife’s 
attack of cholera-morbus, which began by being Asiatic cholera, 
which shows the man’s lively imagination. “ Pure Asiatic cholera,” 
says he; and when Dr. Wilson asked what he meant by “pure 
Asiatic cholera,” it simmered down to a case of cholera.-morbus ! 
Well, didn’t an} T body else have cholera-morbus? “ I don’t know but 
what it was that stinking pond.” But what evidence is there that 
the Worcester sewage had an}^ thing to do with it? Whoever saw the 
bottom of a large pond exposed without smelling odors that would 
make anybod}^ sick? And then he sa}^ that the diphtheria that he 
has seen there was not caused by the river: he excludes this as a 
cause. That is Dr. Wilmot, and he is one of their best witnesses ; and 
all there is to his testimon 3 T is, that two people were made sick by a 
pond which had been drawn off. Then he says, when speaking of 
the greater prevalence of malaria, or that kind of mild, low fever, 
there than he had seen before, “But that, gentlemen, ought not to 
weigh veiy much; because where I have lived I could sit in ny office 
and throw the stump of a cigar into the se%.” That is Dr. Wilmot. 

Next the 3 T called Nehemiah Chase of Wilkinsonville. His mother 
also has lived there sixt 3 T -seven 3 *ears, and she is ninet 3 ’-one years 
old. She is still weathering it; bi^t, if this sewage is not stopped, 
she ma 3 T die before she is a hundred and twent 3 T . He had an Irish¬ 
man that was sick: he had come over from the other county, and 
had been there two or three months. He had come into a new coun¬ 
tiy. Well, who goes into a new country without exposing himself to 
typhoid fever or some other disease that may be incident to being 
acclimated? He came here to a new climate ; he didn’t knowhow 
to protect himself; he got sick with typhoid fever, and got well 
again. Does that make out an 3 ^ case against us? 

Rev. John L. Ewell of Millbury tells about Whitworth’s rowing 
on the river and getting sick ; but his own family are all right, and 
he ascribes that to his wife, — not because the river wouldn’t be 
willing to make them sick, and probably, if it could have its own 
sweet will, it would make them all sick ; but his wife is a very good 


309 


nurse, and apparently it doesn’t think it is any use. His family is 
well because his wife is a good nurse, and not because it is a health¬ 
ful region. 

Then he calls Mr. Esek Saunders, a man for whom we all have 
the greatest possible respect; but Esek Saunders has the idea that 
he has a mission on earth, and that is to compel Worcester to stop 
emptying its sewage into that river. Well, here is Mr. Esek Saun¬ 
ders: he is now in his eighty-second y r ear. He was born in 1800; 
has attended to his business up to last May; and there is one of the 
lamentable cases. That old man doesn’t feel so well as he used to, 
and therefore it is probable that a case affecting the public health 
has been made out! What does he know, when asked for statistics, 
about the health of his mill-hands? Has he looked into it at all? 
He has got that “ impression.” You will see, gentlemen, that I am 
running over this thing. I could dwell upon it for about a week, 
showing the fallacy 7 of most of it; but I will just touch it as I go 
along. 

Joel Smith is superintendent of the Sutton Manufacturing Com- 
pany, and has been so for three y 7 ears. He says there is more sick¬ 
ness in the mills. He has made no figures, nor any examination of 
any books : he has got that impression. Does that make out a case 
of a nuisance causing substantial injury to the public health? Is it 
possible that it does, — such a vague impression as this superintend¬ 
ent has ? 

4 

George W. Fisher—he is a native of that region, or has lived 
there for some time ; and I guess he is a native there. He is the 
agent of the Fisher Manufacturing Company, and he tells about the 
pollution of the stream. “ I have not noticed about the public 
health.” He says there is a common talk, but he has not noticed it, 
he has not discovered it, — this intelligent man has not discovered it. 

Then the 3 T called in Dr. Lincoln, and Dr. Lincoln is one of the 
most intelligent witnesses of whom they called a great many ; but his 
evidence, so far as it has any tendency to prove any thing affecting 
the public health, is this : that when he went to Millbury sixteen years 
ago, there were two physicians in town ; and they thought there were 
no more there than they’ could well attend to, and that it was no 
place for a new man. That was a very singular thing, for those 
physicians to entertain that idea ! I think the members of this board 
who are physicians will say that the idea that they could probably 
wrestle with the Millbury sickness and attend to it considerably well, 
was a very singular idea for them to have ! Well, now there are six; 
and he thinks any one of them has more than either of the two had 
before. I don’t know about that. It is possible that when they 
didn’t have but two there, neither of them were good for any thing, 


310 


and the people came up to Worcester for their doctoring; and it is 
possible that now the} 7 have got such good physicians, that they rather 
like their company, and call them often. 1 don’t know how it is that 
these things grow, but that is all the doctor has got to say about this 
matter. He says that the common sicknesses have been mostly of a 
zymotic type. “Have you in mind any particular cases which you 
can call to the attention of the Committee? A. — No : I don’t know 
of a case that I should be warranted in saying was the result of the 
sewage or any thing of that kind. The general health-rate is not as 
good among our people.” That is his answer. He does not know 
of any prevailing sickness nor a single case that he can ascribe to 
this influence, and he lives right in the midst of it. 

Then they call Dr. Webber ; and Dr. Webber came here cocked and 
primed, — a very able man, a nice man, an entirely honest man,— 
no question about that. But he came here all prepared to make a 
statement, and he has made the strongest statement that could be 
made. When you come to examine his statement, it is that he had four 
cases of typhoid fever that he could not ascribe to any thing other 
than the river. How many doctors on this board have had cases that 
they couldn’t account for? He couldn’t ascribe them to any thing 
else but this river. He had four cases of dysentery also ; and those 
are the cases, if we except Benjamin Flagg who was cut off at seven¬ 
ty-five or seventy-seven years of age with an organic trouble of the 
heart. The old gentleman was working in his mill, and got tired, and 
died by reason of diarrhoea. All Dr. Webber says about this thing is, 
that it is liable in the future to produce an epidemic. But is it a thing 
now affecting the public health? That doctor, right down in the 
midst of it, has only these eight cases to speak of; and he simply can¬ 
not account for them. He knows, and we proved by him, that there 
were typhoid cases all over the town ; and you know and I know that 
there are cases on hills and in valleys and in every possible situation 
where the resources of science cannot furnish any means of discover¬ 
ing what causes them. 

William H. Harrington is next called ; and the point of his testi¬ 
mony is, that there was a time when he drank the water of the river 
at Atlanta Mills in the winter. He used to drink it, but it has grown 
more impure. But he doesn’t testify any thing about the public 
health. 

Then Capt. Peter Simpson tells about having compromised seventy 
thousand yards of goods at five cents a yard discount, making 
twenty-three hundred dollars’ loss ; and he thinks it affects public 
health. But, when you come to facts, he says that Mr. Wilmarth 
died, and that Dr. Gage said he died of this river. Now, you see 
what kind of evidence we are exposed to here. They put in the hear- 


311 


say of this one, and the understanding of that one ; and Capt. Simp¬ 
son, one of the most intelligent and honest men down there, — a 
man who would not state any thing that he did not suppose to be 
true, comes here, and lugs in that rumor, that Dr. Gage had 
condemned that river as the cause of Mr. Wilmarth’s death ! We 
put in the letter of Dr. Gage, in which he says that he died of pneu¬ 
monia caused by exposure after a warm bath, and that he had no 
reason to suppose the river had any thing to do with it, and never 
said so. That disposed of Simpson, so far as the public-health ques¬ 
tion is concerned. Simpson has got some extraordinary cows which 
present a case almost as singular as the opposite effects produced by 
the river upon the morals of Millbury. The effect of the river upon 
cows is very singular indeed. Some of them won’t drink it; you 
can’t get them near it; but we called Mr. Harrington, who says that 
they drink it up there at his brother’s place at Morse’s pond con¬ 
stantly,— they don’t drink any thing else; always drink it; never 
heard any trouble about it. That is one case. Then we called 
Deacon McClellan from Grafton, who has lived there twenty-seven 
years (he was not our witness properly). He believes that the Mill¬ 
bury people are suffering a good deal; for he tells the truth anyway, 
wherever it cuts. He sa}’s his cattle drink that water, and his neigh¬ 
bors’ cattle drink it; and, although he has springs and brooks in his 
lots, they will go to that river and drink that water, instead of drink¬ 
ing from the springs or from the aqueduct. Novv, Capt. Peter Simp¬ 
son of Millbury, who, along with Mr. Morse, must be regarded as the 
Castor or the Pollux of this fight — the}’ are the twin champions of 
it — and he tells you that not 011 I 3 ’ his cattle drink it (he has got a 
fine herd of Ayrshire cattle), but }’Ou can’t keep them away from it 
with clubs ! You have got to fence them away; and he had a fence 
clear down the river there, to keep the cattle from it. And why? 
Why, because they drank it, and it affected the milk ; some of the 
Blackstone River got into the milk ! How, I don’t know ; but it is 
Emerson or somebody who says, that when you find a trout in milk, 
that is circumstantial evidence to which there is no answer whatever. 
Now, when you find Blackstone-river water in Capt. Simpson’s milk, 
you can account for it (and that is circumstantial evidence) by saying 
that it went through the cows, and retained all its peculiar odor as 
it was deposited in the milk ! 

Then they call Thomas Heap, who testifies nothing about health. 
John Gegenheimer is called, the superintendent of the Cordis Mills. 
He speaks about “ more spare hands ; ” and, when you come to inquire 
of him what he knows about this thing, he says he does not know as 
there are any more spare hands than any mill where they run all the 
machinery. Herbert A. Pratt, civil engineer, testifies nothing about 
health. 


312 


Charles Whitworth had some hard rowing in a boat, had a head¬ 
ache, felt unwell, and stopped the rowing, and felt better. His com¬ 
panion rowed in the boat, and felt sick. The doctor told him he 
better stop rowing, so he ceased rowing ; yet he lived right on the 
bank of the river, and has become robust in health, and hearty. 
This is to show that the Worcester sewage is producing an epidemic 
that is affecting substantially the public health ! 

Then the}^ call Charles D. Morse ; and he is, as I said before, 
either Castor or Pollux; he is one of the champions; let me say, a 
man of perfect honesty, but he has got this bee in his bonnet, and his 
testimony is to be taken with a great deal of allowance, — I say it with 
the utmost possible respect; and he has come here to turn the speci¬ 
mens over, and keep them roiled up well, and perform other little 
offices in aid of this case before the Committee. The most that he 
testifies to is this : he did not feel very well himself, and then he tells 
the stoiy of its effect upon the churches. I am not going to stop to 
discuss the matter of his standing-pipes. The} 7 were there in the 
mill, and probably got rusty. I believe it is a pretty clear proposi¬ 
tion, that the}" are a very unreliable kind of security to rest upon in 
case of a fire ; and they did not work very well : but I am not dis¬ 
cussing the question whether or not there is more or less of impurity 
in the Blackstone River, but another question, to wit, whether there 
is any evidence that warrants a finding that we are committing a nui¬ 
sance which substantially affects the public health ; and that is all, as 
I understand, this Committee has any jurisdiction over. Therefore, 
gentlemen, I do not care about any other part of his testimony. 

Then they call Dr. Robert Booth, who had cases of typhoid fever, 
diphtheria, and intermittent fever, and stated that matters were worse 
in Blackstone (when the report of the State Board say the impurities 
are all but lost to chemical tests) than in Millbury. So I do not 
think that his testimony advances their cause any. 

They now call Dr. Charles F. Folsom, or the Committee called 
him; and of course whatever he says he believes. He says the 
public health ma} r possibl}" be affected ; that there is no great quan¬ 
tity of sewage deposit at the dams. He sa}’s it would be his opinion 
that to a certain extent the public health may be affected. Well, 
that I suppose may be, — “to a certain extent; ” but nobody knows 
to what extent. You remember in “ Pinafore,” after it is found out 
that Buttercup had changed the children in their boyhood’s happy 
hours, and that Ralph was the captain, and the captain was Ralph, 
and the admiral, — I forget his name, — who was going to marry the 
captain’s daughter, repudiates the engagement when he finds she is 
nobody but a poor peasant’s daughter, it was suggested to him that 
“ Love levels all ranks.” —* “ Yes,” he said, “it does, to a certain 


313 


extent, but not to this extent;” and so “to a certain extent,” 
according to Dr. Folsom, the public health may be affected; but 
we certainly claim that there is no evidence that it is to any such 
extent as to constitute a substantial impairment. 

Mr. Flagg. Brother G-oulding, that admiral’s name was not Fol¬ 
som. 

Mr. Goulding. That is the evidence of Dr. Folsom, that to a 
certain extent the public health is affected ; and you are asked to 
base a finding upon that, that the public health is substantially and 
seriously affected there, so that you should now embark upon this new 
class of legislation, and should impose upon the city of Worcester 
this burden. 

I pass over Mr. Waring, and come to Dr. Henry P. Walcott, 
another gentleman whose evidence is to be taken as exactly the truth 
so far as he states an}' fact as he understands it. He says it “ affects 
the public health” --you remember how he waited, when you asked 
him the question, to give it full consideration — “to a slight extent 
at present, not to any great extent.” That is the whole of Dr. Wal¬ 
cott’s testimony on that point, perfectly cautious and fair. What 
does it amount to? I mean, as to establishing the proposition we are 
arguing; not whether it would not be desirable if you could have 
this cause w'holly removed, but whether there has been proved the 
present existence of any thing that substantially affects the public 
life. 

Then they put in letters from Rev. B. J. Johnston and Elijah 
Thomson. The only thing of importance in Thomson’s letter is the 
story he tells about the explosion of bubbles on the pond there. 
They would have you believe that statement (I do not know what 
effect it may have upon this proposition), that you can go along there 
at any time, and if you want a little 4th of July entertainment, all 
you have got to do is to apply a match to the bubbles, and they will 
pop off like fire-crackers all over the pond there an}'where. That is 
the story. Sulphuretted hydrogen, Mr. Elijah Thomson says is the 
cause of it. I suppose the doctors upon this Committee know some¬ 
thing of chemistry ; and, with such a volume of water as is contained 
in that pond, I submit to you, if all the fish in that part of Blackstone 
River should suddenly die, and be buried under that dam, and all the 
musquash were to follow them, that there would not be enough sul¬ 
phuretted hydrogen rise up through that water to produce any such 
effect at all. It would be impossible. I submit to the intelligence 
of the doctors upon this Committee, and the other gentlemen who 
have paid any attention whatever to chemistry, that the effect of the 
water is to absorb it and destroy it. You may bury one hundred dead 
horses under there, and it might possibly produce such an effect. 


814 


Now, we have an answer to this, in some vital statistics that have 
been presented here. I will dwell upon them for a moment. They 
show that the death-rate of Millbury has not increased ; that it has 
rather improved, on the whole, compared with other places similarly 
situated ; but how carefully they have hedged and guarded against 
this thing ! The}’ seemed to scent it in the air, they seemed to antici¬ 
pate it. Without knowing what the death-rate was, they were care¬ 
fully guarding against it, and hence they would parry it before it 
came. But it has come. Now, what do we claim with regard to 
this? They put in a book of Dr. Simon of England who says that it 
does not bear a constant ratio to the health-rate. Perhaps not; 
nobody claims it does. It is not common sense to suppose it would, 
a constant ratio. But is it true we have in this nation gone into the 
question of vital statistics as affecting the health-rates for the pur¬ 
pose of seeing if we can do something for the public health, and have 
a National Board of Health to investigate, and that it is no criterion 
whatever? If these statistics had been inculpatory of Worcester, I 
guess you would have seen them in here produced by the other side. 

We called Dr. Martin and Dr. Rice. They know of no epidemic 
disease there; and we called Mr. Charles B. Pratt, and he disposed 
of the story about the fishes. We called Deacon John McLellan, 
whose health is all right, and who says the smell there when the 
water is low is like the smell which comes from the bottom of any 
pond when the water is drawn off. We called Mr. Harrington. I 
have had already occasion to refer to his testimony. That is all 
there is about public health so far as the evidence goes. 

Then we come to the report of the State Board of Health, and I 
want to go over that hastily. It does not report any thing about the 
existence of any condition of things which is producing any effect 
upon the public health, except to say that the population along the 
banks of the river believe it has a perceptible effect, the resident phy¬ 
sician sharing to some extent the belief; but they do not add any 
thing to this point. Now, what does that board recommend? Do 
they recommend in that report that this scheme of theirs should be 
adopted? I do not understand that they so recommend. I do not 
understand that that was the question submitted to them ; and the 
board had no function, as I understand, to recommend whether any 
scheme should be adopted, nor at whose expense ; but that a specific 
question was put to them, and they answered it. 

Now, let me, before I proceed to discuss their report, as I shall do 
as hastily as possible, refer to a case in the western part of the State 
concerning the Lenox Pond, not for the purpose of reading any con¬ 
siderable part of it, but for the purpose of calling your attention to 
one or two sentences. The Smith Paper Company have been sub- 


815 


jected to an indictment which is now pending in court in Berkshire 
County. It came on for a hearing last May or June, and was post¬ 
poned ; but the prosecution propose to prove, as establishing a public 
nuisance affecting the public health, the following: They propose to 
show that u malaria began to develop so as to be noticeable about 
1877, and a little the year before. It began on the north end of the 
east side near the Pittsfield line, the following year spreading down 
the east side, then across to the west side, till now in nearly every 
house there have been cases, sometimes whole-families being afflicted. 
About a hundred and eighty persons have been sick in one year.” 
Now, 1 simply allude to that as an instance where it is proposed 
seriously to prove a public nuisance. Is there any such thing exist¬ 
ing here, or any thing that at all resembles it? 

Now I come to the Report of the State Board of Health, to see what 
the}' have reported. The resolution of 1881, chap. 07, directed the 
board to consider and report “ with recommendations as to a definite 
plan for the prevention of such pollution.” 

In other words, as I construe that resolution, and as I suppose the 
board construed it, they were required to examine and report what 
definite plan would best prevent such pollution. The resolution did 
not require them to report whether any definite plan ought on the 
whole to be tried, nor at whose expense. The question is, What is 
the most practical plan to prevent it? Assuming that the thing exists, 
assuming that it is desirable to prevent it, what is the most desirable 
method of preventing the cause? Now, in answering, the board 
say, — 

First, That “ all methods proposed are, to a certain extent, ex¬ 
perimental. . . . The board accepts with great confidence the con¬ 
clusions stated in the report of its experts.” How much time do you 
suppose that board gave to this subject? They went up there to 
Worcester to settle a controversy, and turned it over to these experts ; 
and these conclusions of the experts are the conclusions of the board, 
and of course they would accept them with great confidence ; but they 
do not add any thing to the report. “ Being convinced that 1 the 
system of intermittent, downward filtration,’ supplemented, if neces¬ 
sary, by broad irrigation, is best adapted to the condition of things,” 
they therefore recommend the system submitted in the report of the 
experts ” as . . . “ in the judgment of the board the best method of 
disposing of the sewage of the city of Worcester.” 

Now, the conclusions of the experts, what are the 3 '? These ex¬ 
perts are Drs. Folsom and Walcott, and Mr. Davis. They refer to 
five possible methods, of which they reject two, leaving three, to wit, 
chemical treatment or precipitation in tanks ; second, intermittent 
filtration through natural soil; third, broad irrigation. Of those it 


316 


is to be noticed that Col. Waring, whose eminence as an authority 
the board recognized in the most flattering terms, says, The first, 
that is, chemical treatment or precipitation in tanks, is not worth 
considering. You will find that in his report. Thus in their report 
they expressly recommend a method which this very expert says is 
not worth considering. 

Second , The experts say, that, considering the climate, dilution of 
sewage, the difficulties in the way, etc., are far beyond those of any 
town where the question has already been met. And when men of 
the caution, coolness, and judgment of Dr. Walcott, Dr. Folsom, and 
Mr. Davis say that, it means the whole length of that proposition : it 
does not mean anything less, — that they believe the difficulties are 
far beyond any that have been met, and the thing is experimental. 

Third , Any scheme that ma} T be proposed, they say, may be said 
to be experimental to a certain extent. 

Fourth , To be successful, and not create a greater n.uisance than it 
abolishes, the outlaj’ must be costly, etc. ; then there is danger that 
3 ’ou may create a larger nuisance if you abolish this. It ma}' be that 
3 *ou had better bear the ills 3 ’ou have than fty to others you know not 
of. They carefully guard themselves ; and you will see all through 
this report, which is drawn with the greatest possible judgment, that 
they have carefully guarded every bridge over which the 3 T can escape, 
if this thing fails. They have not left an avenue which the 3 r have 
not guarded. There is not one of them that would invest five hundred 
dollars in the scheme, if he could get five thousand dollars if it suc¬ 
ceeded. They carefulty hedge and guard themselves against all pos¬ 
sibilities, and make good the avenues of retreat. 

Fifth , After some description of downward filtration and broad 
irrigation, the latter is dismissed as not available for Worcester. 
Then the experts say this, and sa 3 * it with deliberation, —I regard it 
as the most extraordinary sentence in their whole statement. You 
will not regard me as reflecting in an 3 ' wa 3 T upon these gentlemen. I 
am commenting upon their report. They were asked by the Legisla¬ 
ture, if I understand it, “Gentlemen, suppose you have got to dis¬ 
pose of the Worcester sewage without polluting Blackstone River, 
what is the best scheme by which that can be done?” and they sa 3 T 
this is the best scheme they know of. They do not say any scheme 
will work, but, “This is the best scheme we know of.” They say 
this, and I want to call 3 T our particular attention to it. The experts 
then say, “We know of no scheme so practicable as being able to 
provide for all the ordinary sewage by modified, intermittent, down¬ 
ward filtration, and procuring several hundred acres upon which sur¬ 
face irrigation maybe attempted and extended from year to year.” 
I consider* that a most remarkable sentence, because it was drawn 


317 


/ 


with great care. As Dr. Walcott sa}’s, “ They did not leave any sen¬ 
tence to any one ot their number, but it had the personal attention of 
all.” They do not say, “You will be able to do it,” but, “We 
know of no scheme so practicable as being able to do it.” Well, I 
should think not. Now, if Capt. Bunsby ever gave an opinion that 
was more guarded, and could be defended at all times, and could be 
protected, whatever the final result might be, if he ever gave an opin¬ 
ion that was more calculated to stand upon experience, and go out 
and survive all storms, and ride safely into harbor, then I am not 
aware of it. Now, I do not mean to compare this board with Capt. 
Bunsby in any other sense than that they have guarded their opinion ; 
so that it will mean whatever you want to have it mean, according 
to circumstances. 

Sixth, “Probably there is hardly another place in the State” — 
You see how they are guarding themselves in this thing. It is like 
the reports we get from Old Probabilities. Cautionary signals on the 
coast are set up ; and they set up all along the coast of this report 
their cautionary signals, “ Beware of danger at this point,” “ Look¬ 
out for man-traps.” “ Probably there is hardly another place in the 
State where the conditions of the problem can be as readily met as in 
Worcester to remedy an evil which is fast becoming a general one.” 
And they say, — in view of the statistics I have put in here, show¬ 
ing } r ou that in twenty places in this State the pollution is 98J per 
cent, as great as in the Blackstone, and in many places a great deal 
more, — they say, “This is fast becoming a general one;” and I 
submit a general law would be the right sort of measure to remedy 
it, instead of singling out Worcester, and laying this burden upon 
her. 

Seventh , “We therefore recommend, as the most practicable and 
least expensive method of disposing of the sewage of Worcester, 
intermittent downward filtration.” Well, there is their report, and 
there is the whole of it. 

Now, concurrently with this report, having sufficient dignity to be 
printed in their report, is Col. Waring’s report. I shall not discuss 
the scheme by which he proposes to take this water through a wind¬ 
ing drainage, backwards and forwards, see-saw, fifteen miles, and 
plant it with osiers dank and precious-juiced flowers, to suck the con¬ 
tagion out of the sewage. The}’ are going to remove all contagion 
out of this thing, and make it delightful and sweet. I will not go 
through the report. It is not m 3 ’ purpose. I do not allude to it for 
an} r such purpose. But his report is dated Dec. 15, and the report 
of the board is dated Nov. 17. He knew all about their report, and 
had it before him, of course. It came out a month before. 

Mr. Flagg. Do yon state that as a matter of fact? It is not so. 


318 


Mr. Rand. Dec. 5 was the date of Col. Waring’s report, not 
the 15th. 

Mr. Goulding. Very well, Dec. 5. Now, he either knew of 
their report, or else he is more conceited than I suppose he is, to go 
on and recommend a plan without knowing what their report was. 
Their report was out Nov. 17, it is dated then; and if he did not 
look at it, — if he regarded it as not worth looking at, — he is a 
great deal more conceited than I gave him credit for; and, when I 
heard the statement he made here, I gave him credit for a great deal: 
but I do not think he would have made his report upon this matter 
without consulting the Report of the State Board of Health. He is 
commended as high authority by the State Board of Health, and he 
was retained by the town of Millbury to find out a plan for them by 
which this pollution could be removed. Now, what does he do? He 
totallv ignores intermittent downward filtration. He does not return 
the compliment of the board, though his report is made a month 
later. He does not pa}' the scheme of that board, which they have 
been setting forth, the poor compliment of a passing notice. 

Mr. Flagg. As a matter of fact, he did not know of their report. 

Mr. Godlding. Then, he is more conceited than I supposed he 
was. I do not believe it. If he went to work to report, when he 
knew this board of experts of Massachusetts were seeking to solve 
this question, without examining what their report was, and gave his 
report independent of theirs, he paid them very little respect, and 
exhibits a sublimer self-confidence than I supposed he had. He 
testified in his report right here to you, gentlemen ; and he must have 
heard of it by this time. And whether Col. Waring knew, or did 
not know, the substance of the Report of the State Board, when he 
made his report, the argument here advanced is not affected. For 
if modified downward intermittent filtration is, demonstrably by 
science, the method best adapted to Worcester’s case, then this ^reat 
scientist ought to have reached that conclusion by independent 
scientific processes. He does not pay it the poor compliment of any 
notice except to say, “ The State have reported one method.” He 
does not tell you how this other plan will work ; but he has got a 
scheme which, he says, will easily settle this question. This expert, 
I say, does not notice them. 

On the other hand, they proceed to demolish his report, as vou will 
see on pp. ccix., ccx. ; and, without reading it over, I will say that 
they devote a page to considering a few objections which they con¬ 
sider his plan open to. They go right to the heart of the matter, 

and, by a few elementary objections, demolish it entirely,_that is 

what they do with Col. Waring. Now, if such an illustration could 
be used consistently with the utmost respect for the State Board, I 


319 


should say I am indifferent which of these Kilkenny cats kills the 
other first; and I will say, that, when scientists who are so eminent, 
and who are honestly seeking for a plan, differ so diametrically, it 
does seem to cast ominous conjecture on the whole success of the 
scheme. 

Now, we say that this scheme is so experimental, so uncertain, that 
it is unjust to the people of Worcester to enter upon it, or upon any 
scheme that would be an expense to them for the benefit of the pub¬ 
lic. We called Mr. Worthen. Mr. Worthen is an engineer who 
knows about this whole subject. He was an experienced engineer, 
was an eminent civil engineer, before my friends Dr. Walcott and 
Dr. Folsom were out of college, and before they were in it, and, I 
think, before they had got very far along in the common schools. 
Mr. Worthen was an eminent engineer; and it is no disparagement 
to any of them to say that he is the peer in intelligence of an}’ of 
them, and vastly their superior in experience. He says that he does 
not agree with this plan. He does not believe in it. He has told 
you about its effect. 

Now, I will not dwell upon Mr. Worthen*s evidence except to say 
he is an expert of high ability, and he totally differs with them. 
Rudolph Hering says on the seventeenth page of supplement 16 
of the National Board of Health Bulletin, dated Dec. 21, 1881, 
“ Whereas comparatively little has been written on the previous sub¬ 
jects, there exists a considerable amount of literature on this one, 
owing mainly to the controversies that have arisen regarding it. I 
shall therefore merely state the conclusions to which the opinions of 
those engaged with the subject”— I want to call the attention 
of this Committee, who are practical men, and who propose to deal 
with this question as practical men, to this sentence, as embodying 
the whole matter in a nutshell: “I shall therefore merely state the 
conclusions to which the opinions of those engaged with the sub¬ 
ject ”— concur? A conclusion in which they concur? A conclu¬ 
sion in which any two of them agree? Not at all, but towards which 
they “converge.” That is, they are converging towards these con¬ 
clusions, “and which a personal inspection of the various methods 
and works warrant, adding a few elucidating remarks.” He goes on 
and says the best way of disposing of sewage is into a large river or 
the sea. He goes on to show the expectations formerly entertained 
about utilizing sewage, but says they have not been realized, etc. 
Then he goes on and gives the names of a number of places where 
the best examples of irrigation were found ; and among others he 
enumerates Bedford, Doncaster, Croydon, Wrexham, and Learning- 
ton, in England. It is important reading, in connection with the state 
of this science. We say there is no condition of science to warrant 


820 


anybody to come to any other conclusion than that come to by Mr. 
Worthen; to wit, the method of purifying sewage has not yet been 
invented. 

Now, these experts come here full of enthusiasm, full of learning, 
full of theories: the}’ are able men ; but when you come to the ques¬ 
tion of whether they agree that there is practically any method, and 
what, the}’ totally fail to agree, or to come anywhere within hailing 
distance of any agreement. Now, we say it might be proper to 
impose this burden, if it promised certain success ; but it does not 
promise certain or assured success; it promises possible failure, 
probable failure. Failure at Worcester we are not read}’ to pay for. 
If this thing was going to be a perfect success in every particular, 
it would be an entirely different question whether you would impose 
it upon Worcester; but, when you remember that it may fail, you 
will also remember that failure is just as valuable to the rest of the 
State as success. They would gain as much by way of the warning 
derived from our example as they would by success. It is not a 
question whether we ought to pay for success, but w’hether w r e ought 
to pay for the failure for the benefit of the State. This board was 
repeating the language of the board of 1876 ; and I assure you they 
did not do any great amount of original investigation, for they did 
not need to: they had the facts in that report. The report says, 
“ This is a fast-growing evil.” We have shown you by the evidence 
that the evil exists as much in other places as in Worcester; and 
shall we be the pioneers ? shall w T e be made the paschal lamb to be 
sacrificed for the benefit of the rest of the community, and, if we 
fail in the attempt, yet furnish them with just as much instruction by 
our failure as we should if w r e had succeeded? Failure w’ould be no 
answer to Millbury. They will come here five years hence, suppos¬ 
ing we w r ere to adopt this scheme, and supposing the effluent is not 
satisfactory, and they will say, “ You are putting your sewage into our 
stream. W r e don’t believe in downward intermittent filtration.” 
They will then say, “We have got Col. Waring here with new views. 
Don’t talk to us about downward filtration ! Don’t you know that 
in other towns they have got a new process? In other towns they 
are adopting more recent plans of purification, which cost only two, 
three, or four hundred thousand dollars. Modified intermittent down¬ 
ward filtration is obsolete.” 

Now, we have shown you that there are fifty or sixty manufactur¬ 
ing places that pollute this stream ; and the proposition is that we 
shall purify this stream of the pollution caused bv the manufacturing 
establishments, as well as that caused by the city. The proposition 
is, in other words, that the people of Worcester, which is doing only 
what she has a right to do, shall purify this stream, not only from 


321 


the impurities which she puts into it by her sewage, but also purify 
it of the impurities put in by the mill-owners who have no right 
whatever to do so. And my friends on the other side know that if 
Mr. Morse, or anybody else in Millbury, is injured by the pollutions 
put into that stream by any manufacturing concern at Millbury, or 
Worcester, or elsewhere, the} 7 can get the parties doing the injury 
enjoined, if they can prove it, or bring an action against them for 
damages. The}" can join them all, or as many as they have a mind 
to, in a single action ; and if they can prove that either alone, or in 
conjunction with others, the mill-owners have injured their property, 
thev can recover damages. 

Merrifield v. Lombard, Bryant v. Bigelow Carpet Company, 
Wheeler v. Worcester. 

These cases, the last of which I had the honor to defend, settle 
this proposition ; that is, where several parties do independent acts 
which go to constitute an injury, although one of them might not 
alone constitute the injury, if they are independent yet combined 
acts, and produce an injury, you may join them all, or any of them, 
or sue one of them alone, and recover your damages. There is not 
a mill-owner putting pollution into that stream that has a right to 
do it; and shall the city of Worcester be compelled to purify the 
stream from the impurities that we put in there as a matter of right, 
and also of the impurities which are put in by mill-owners as a matter 
of wrong? 

Mr. Flagg. We only ask that the sewage be purified. We will 
take care of the manufacturers that are polluting it. 

Mr. Goulding. Perhaps that is worth while. That illustrates 
the paralytic state of mind they are in upon this subject, to suppose 
that it is possible to pick out of this stream the sewage, and purify 
it of that, and not purify it of the impurities of the mills that flow 
into it. Is such a proposition possible to be maintained? And yet 
they say that! They have nothing else to say. I say the proposi¬ 
tion is, to compel Worcester to make it pure, not only of the impuri¬ 
ties of the sewage put into the stream under the law, but also of the 
impurities which mill-owners put in there against the law. 

Another thing: Millbury, from the beginning of its history, has 
done just exactly what we have done to this stream, to the extent of 
her ability. Singletary Brook, which empties into the Blackstone, 
is almost as impure as the Blackstone. They propose that we shall 
wash this stream pure — for what purpose? In order that they may 
empty their filth into it. We are to wash this stream pure in order 
that Millbury may have it clean for the purpose of emptying her filth 
into it. The nymph of the Blackstone, which has become impure by 
the embraces of Worcester, is to become purified in order that she 


822 


may submit to the foul embraces of Millbury. This is the object of 
their application. 

Now, I will call your attention to the Report of the State Board of 
Health of 1878, p. 66, where they say this : — 

“There are some places where harm is already done by pollution of water¬ 
courses, although not to that extent which may coi ..inonly be seen in England, 
for instance. As a whole, throughout the State, the evil from the pollution of 
streams is small as compared with that arising from the accumulation of filth in 
privies, cesspools, etc., near dwelling-houses.” 

Who doubts that there is vastly more danger to public health of 
Millbury from the contamination of air and water by 7 means of accu¬ 
mulation of filth than from the pollution of the Blackstonc ? 

There is another proposition that I desire to submit to you. Either 
there is a nuisance affecting the public health, or there is none. If 
there is a nuisance, the statute-book is full of remedies for all the 
parties in the courts. There is no deficiency in the statutes. They 
can proceed by action, by a bill in equity, by indictment, and bring 
us into court, and convict us of maintaining a nuisance, if there is 
any such thing. If there is a nuisance, there is a plenty' of remedies. 
If there is no nuisance, then I submit it would be the height of injus¬ 
tice to select us out, and subject us to legislation which, if it should 
be enforced, would be a calamity to the people of the city which I 
cannot undertake to measure. But now they anticipate that argu¬ 
ment; and my 7 friend said in his opening, “Mr. Goulding said that 
last y ear, and he will probably say it this year.” Well, I think I 
should be likely to say it. If there is a nuisance, indict us, bring us 
into court. If there is no nuisance, then do not select us out for special 
legislation, which is worse than criminal law. 

But they' say they are actuated in this by T a feeling of neighborly' 
friendship. That is, they do not propose to bring us before the courts, 
where we would have the protection of judges learned in the law, and 
be tried by the rules of evidence; where evidence that was competent 
would be put in, and not rumors, like Capt. Simpson’s story of Dr. 
Gage’s diagnosis of Wilmarth’s case, and where evidence would not 
be put in at random. We may there get our case postponed for a 
time, long enough to construct some of these works. They are doing 
this now altogether out of friendly feelings ; and, as a manifestation 
of their kindly regard, they haul us here before the Legislature, and 
propose a bill which provides that the city shall have four months to 
do this work in. I say, we have shown you that it would take three 
years to construct the works ; yet in four months we are expected to 
leave the Blackstone River free from the defilement of the city, either 
from the city alone, or in conjunction with other sources. That is tbe 
kind of tender mercy that the people in Millbury show to us. They 




323 

go to their prayer-meetings, and pray over this matter; and then 
their Christian charity leads them to do such a thing as that! Why 
did they do it? I won’t stop to read from my brother’s opening, 
as I intended, because I have already consumed a great deal of time ; 
but the} T did it because two or three mayors have said something in 
their inaugurals, and Senator Hoar has said something. I will read 
that passage, because I do not want to misrepresent m 3 ' brother Morse. 
On p. 20 : 44 Mr. Chairman, while there are such men in Worcester, 
and such a spirit shown there, it would certainly be in the highest 
degree unfair and unneighborly for the people injured by this evil to 
take an} T legal action ; and that is why they have forborne to do it.” 

They won’t take any legal action where we can be protected by 
regular laws and by counsel, where we can take such steps as may be 
necessary to protect our rights ; but they haul us before the Legisla¬ 
ture, and ask the enactment of this cruel law, which would put a stop, 
if it could be enforced, to the life of the city. They haul us here, 
and in doing so they are actuated by that tender mercy because one 
or two mayors have in their inaugurals said something which they 
think is favorable to them. I do not know how many of you have 
ever been elected as mayor ; but, if you were elected mayor in Worces¬ 
ter, you would be expected to deliver an inaugural on the 1 st of 
January, and in it you would be expected to discuss all questions 
relating to the treasury department, the investment of money, etc. ; 
you would be expected to go over the school question, and offer sug¬ 
gestions as to the educational interests of the city ; you would be 
expected to have something to say upon the sewer question, and all 
such questions ; and, if you were a man of any prominence and ca¬ 
pacity, as you would be, of course, if you were elected mayor, you 
would want to say something that would be new and sensational, and 
not present a dull statement unenlivened with any thing striking and 
original. Now, at the time those inaugurals were written, much was 
being said about the utilization of sewage ; and these mayors thought 
if they could say something about the waste matter which was running 
down the sewers, and suggest that it might be utilized, they would 
have touched a topic that would make the councilmen prick up their 
ears, and the board of aldermen would say, 44 We have got somebody 
here now that is going to do something.” Then they read Mr. Hoar’s 
speech, which I shall not read again. No person has any higher 
respect than I for Senator Hoar, and I do not think there is any thing 
in this case that would induce me to say any thing disrespectful of 
him. Senator Hoar, as far as I am aware, has never investigated 
the facts involved in this question, nor the law of it, only as he knows 
the law as one of the most prominent lawyers in the State and the 
easy leader of our bar. So far as I am aware, he has expressed no 
opinion on the subject whatever. 


324 


Now, gentlemen, suppose that the town of Millbury, and the towns 
constituting that representative district, had suddenly discovered the 
merits of a gentleman who belonged to the minority partly, whose 
merits before they never had conceived of, who had been quietly left 
out of office all his life, and then the people, sinking all political dif¬ 
ferences, had united upon that man, an able lawyer, for the sole reason 
that he was supposed to be able to deal with this question. Sup¬ 
pose they had selected Mr. Hopkins for that purpose, a man who did 
not represent their political opinions, but who was an able lawyer, 
and a man who, they supposed, could aid them in the Legislature. 
Now, suppose in Worcester the minority party, not representing the 
political sentiment of the majorit}’ of the people of Worcester, put 
up another able lawyer as their candidate, as able as Mr. Hopkins, 
as adroit, acute, and far-seeing, able to deal with anybody on an} r 
question. Now, supposing some members of the party in the ma¬ 
jority were using the argument through the street,' 4 Your Republican 
candidate isn’t able to deal with this question. Don’t you see they 
have put up Hopkins down there, and you want Mr. Verry down 
there to meet him in the Senate?” It was in that- situation that Mr. 
Hoar made the speech read here. In that state of the question he 
said in substance, 4 * We do not want to retain a law}'er to defend us 
as though we were doing a wrong, but we want to-send a representa¬ 
tive to represent us.” Worcester does not want to send down to the 
Legislature a senator 44 to get her off,” as if she were inflicting a 
wrong. We want our representatives to represent Berkshire as well 
as Worcester. That was the question Senator Hoar was discussing; 
and to wrest his remarks into an indorsement of their views upon 
this subject seems to me to show the condition into which they are 
driven b} r the exigencies of their case. There ma}' be other citizens 
of Worcester who have the opinion, — the present mayor of Worces¬ 
ter, for aught I know, may have the opinion, — that if we could get 
rid of this claim of Millbury by paying them money, or if we could 
settle this question once for all, so this should be all and the end of 
all here, or if there were somebody qualified and able to represent 
everybody concerned, and to sign a receipt, a discharge in full, my 
friend Mr. Stoddard, the mayor, might be willing, and go with all 
his heart for paying them a sum of mone} 7 that the}' would receipt for 
in full, and let that end it; and in that respect he may represent 
many of the citizens of Worcester. And this he* and others might 
be willing to do wholly apart from, and independently of, legal rights 
and obligations. But so far as this proposition goes, a proposition 
that proposes to invade our rights, and take awa}^ from us that which 
we have a right to do, the city government is unanimous in their op¬ 
position to it. I am authorized by the vote of the Committee having 
the matter in charge to oppose all these schemes as unjust. 


325 


The Chairman. Do I understand you that this Committee oufflit 
not to report a bill authorizing the city of Worcester to do certain 
things, but leave it entirely to them? 

Mr. Goulding. I am not aware that any members of the city 
government have airy objection to this Legislature conferring upon 
the city all or an}' authority it sees fit upon any subject. I will 
answer that question directly: I am not arguing any such thing. I 
simply make the remark that the mayor and other gentlemen may be 
of the opinion that they would be willing to pay something if an} T body 
was present authorized to give them a receipt in full, and settle this 
matter ; and I understand the mayor is not opposed to the Legislature 
giving specific power in the premises, and I do not know that any¬ 
body is opposed to that. But I should suggest that the legislation 
should be general, and should apply to all cities and towns which may 
have now or hereafter sewerage systems. 

Now, I want to speak of one thing more, and I will close. It 
seems to me there is one thing these experts have not taken any 
notice of; at least, they have not developed it in their report: and 
that is, the results of this sewage purification. The Croydon farm in 
England is always cited as one of the best examples of sewage purifi¬ 
cation works in England. It is on the Wandle, and there is a sewage 
farm there. You will find on the 17th page of the report of Hering, 
that he says what they all say: that broad irrigation is better than 
downward filtration. Croydon has broad irrigation. Now, I want 
to ask you what results have been obtained in Croydon, and I will 
turn to the 376th page of the State Board of Health for 1876. On 
that page we find that the effluent of the Croydon farm, where, you 
understand, they had provided broad irrigation, is 47.0821. That is, 
it is a good deal worse than that of Mill-brook sewer at the worst 
point, after they got through treating it, as shown by this analysis. 

Mr. Flagg. You mean to say it was in 1875, or whenever those 
statistics were made up. 

Mr. Goulding. I mean what I sav. It was succeeding as well as 
ever it was, before or since. There is no evidence one way or the 
other except what you get from that report; and I mean to say when 
that analysis was taken, after it had been treated at Croydon, the best 
result is 47.0821, about four times as polluted as the Blackstone at 
Millbury. Our sewage at the worst point, -according to the analysis 
last year, was 41.8700, while the effluent of the Croydon farm-after 
irrigation was 47.0821 ; or, in other words, the effluent of that farm 
is twelve per cent, in excess of the impurity of Mill-brook sewer at 
the very worst point. Now, in Merthyrtydvil, in Wales, they use 
a downward filtration scheme, I believe. The result there is, after 
treatment with lime, 65.854, or about one-half in excess of our sewage 


326 


at the worst place, and five or six times as corrupt as at Millbury. 
At Mertlryrtydvil these figures show that, after treatment with lime 
before the intermittent filtration, it is 65.854. That leaves out nitro¬ 
gen, and some other elements which are not mentioned in the anafyses 
of the Blackstone, to which I have referred. This report shows the 
result to be, after intermittent filtration, 37.675, nearly as bad as our 
sewage at Cambridge Street, and nearly four times as bad as at Mill¬ 
bury. 

Now it is proposed we shall enter upon this experiment of down¬ 
ward intermittent filtration, to purify for the benefit of Millbury, and 
prepare it for their sewage, a stream which is four times as pure as 
the effluent of the best sewage farms in England, which effluent is 
“ no way objectionable,” “ is quite pure.” 

The truth is about this, gentlemen : this investigation into the im- 
purity of streams was started originally for the purpose of purifying 
such streams as furnished sources of water-supply for towns or cities. 
When we compare the Blackstone and other streams in the State with 
the English streams, we do not find that there is at present aii}~ such 
degree of pollution as demands immediate relief. The words of the 
State Board are carefully guarded, and the} T speak rather of a condi¬ 
tion which ma} T become a serious evil rather than a present existing 
evil. There is no occasion for hasty and precipitate legislation. It 
is something relating to the future 3 ’ou are dealing with. The attempt 
made here to establish the proposition that a great danger exists in 
the present has, I submit, failed. There may be a remedy for this, 
by taking down the dams, and making the Blackstone River accom¬ 
plish what nature intended it for, — that b}’ its currents and motion it 
lmyy carry away the off-scourings and impurities of the land. 

Gentlemen, I have to thank you for the attention you have given 
me during this long speech. I could not see how long it was going 
to be. I have gone over the whole subject. What Worcester wants 
is fair treatment. Pass a law that shall apply to us as to others. 
Worcester is too influential to be treated with injustice, and this great 
Commonwealth cannot afford to treat her with injustice; and it could 
little afford to treat her with injustice if she were the weakest com¬ 
munity in the land. The blood in our veins is red. We have the 
usual supply of the corpuscles that make it red. If the time has 
come when this growing evil that my friends speak of has reached a 
point where there ought to be a general investigation by a River 
Pollution Commission for the purpose of inquiring into this matter 
(not taking an old report and transferring it into another), a commis¬ 
sion having this subject specially in charge, and having ample time to 
make a thorough investigation, and then report some general legisla¬ 
tion, there is not an} r community in this land that will more cheerfully 


( 


827 

join in aid of any scheme that the public necessities require than 
Worcester. She has always borne her share of the public burdens 
cheerfully. She is not greater than the law. If she is violating the 
law, there are remedies enough; and, if new legislation is required, 
let it be general legislation, not legislation levelled at a particular 
community, which is likely to retard her progress; and not merely 
retard her progress, but, if it could be enforced, prevent her very 
existence. 

Adjourned to Tuesday, March 21, at 10.30 a.m. 


328 


EIGHTH HEARING. 


State House, Boston, March 21, 1882. 

CLOSING ARGUMENT OF HON. R. M. MORSE, JUN., 

FOR THE PETITIONERS. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — The establishment of this Com¬ 
mittee marked a new era in the legislation of this State. It is only 
within a few years that a Committee on Public Health has existed in 
this Legislature. Its first name was “ Committee on Water-Supply 
and Drainage ; ” and under that name it continued for some time, 
attending specially to the matter of water-supply for cities and towns : 
but the reach of its inquiries and investigations was constantly ex¬ 
tending farther and farther, until finally the name was given to it 
under which it now serves, — the “ Committee on Public Health,” — 
the most comprehensive name, perhaps, which is held by any com¬ 
mittee of the Legislature. Experience has shown that the class of 
subjects committed to its care, and the investigation which it has 
been necessary to give them, have been of the largest character; and 
to-day there is no organization under the control of either branch of 
the General Court which has to do so closely with the public welfare 
as this Committee. Upon the breadth of its recommendations, upon 
the wisdom of its policy, very much of the future prosperity of the 
State must depend. As 3 'ou, gentlemen, are laying the foundations 
of wise legislation, or unwise legislation, in the future, I ask you at 
the outset to look at this question, as upon all questions, not with 
any narrow or selfish view, but with a very broad regard to the prin¬ 
ciples that are involved, and to the effects of their solution, or your 
solution of them, upon the legislatures and the people that are to 
come after you. 

There is certainly nothing that of recent years has attracted the 
attention of public men and of intelligent writers to a larger extent 
than sanitary questions. The whole tendency of the medical profes¬ 
sion, as you, gentlemen, are fully aware, has been, in these latter 
days, to prevent disease. Essays have been written on the subject, 
speeches have been delivered, legislation has been invoked and has 
been passed, the special point of which has been to prevent disease. 
In old times, the only duty of a physician, the only function which he 
had to discharge, was to cure disease, as well as he could, after it 


329 


had come. The modern physician looks to the sources of disease, 
and undertakes to prevent it. The profession in this country have 
been fully up to the profession abroad. Everywhere the tendency 
has been to examine into the causes of disease, and to endeavor to 
eradicate them, to limit and control them, and so to prevent disease. 
There are certain fundamental principles upon which all this preven¬ 
tive policy has rested. Pure air and pure water have been regarded 
everywhere as essential; and both in the management of private es¬ 
tablishments, and in the conduct of large municipal corporations, the 
principle has been invoked by* all medical men, and, through their 
instrumentality mainty, has been acted upon by’ governing bodies, 
that every cause of impurity, so far as practicable, should be removed 
from the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the places we 
frequent. 

I cannot do better than to quote the words of two distinguished 
English statesmen on the importance of this class of questions. In 
1877, on the occasion of the opening of one of the Victoria Dwelling 
Association Buildings in London, Earl Beaconsfield said, —• 

“I have touched upon the health of the people; and I know there are many 
who look upon that as an amiable, but mere philanthropic, expectation to dwell 
upon. But the truth is, the matter is much deeper than it appears upon the 
surface. The health of a people is really the foundation upon which all their 
happiness, and all their power as a State, depends. It is quite possible for a 
kingdom to be inhabited - by an able and active population; you may have suc¬ 
cessful manufactures, and you may have productive agriculture, the arts may 
flourish, architecture may cover your land with temples and palaces, you may 
even have material power to defend and support all these acquisitions; but if 
the population of the country is stationary, or yearly diminishing in number, 
it diminishes also in stature and in strength, — that country is doomed. Speak¬ 
ing to those who I hope are not ashamed to say they are proud of the empire to 
which they belong, and which their ancestors created, I recommend them by 
all the means in their power to assist the movement which is now prevalent in 
this country to ameliorate the condition of the people by improving the dwell¬ 
ings in which they live. The health of the people is, in my opinion , the first duly 
of a statesman .” 

And Mr. Gladstone, addressing his neighbors and friends at 
Hawarden, in August, 1877, say’s,— 

“I have lived in the West End of London for forty-six years; but, although 
there is a greater number of people there, and the town has spread in all direc¬ 
tions, yet when you open a window now the air is purer and fresher, and fewer 
‘blacks’ come in, than forty years ago. The reason is, that Acts of Parliament 
have been passed to prevent people from wantonly and wilfully making smoke, 
and compelling them to consume it. This is now done to a great extent, — 
not quite so much as it ought to be; but still a great improvement has been 
effected. God made this world to be pleasant to dwell in. I don’t mean to say 
he made it to be without trial or affliction, but he made our natural and physical 
condition to be pleasant. The air, the sun, the skies, the trees, the grass, and 


330 


the streams, these are all pleasant things; but we go about spoiling, defacing, 
and deforming them. We cannot, it is true, make the town as pleasant as God 
has made the country; but most of you can do something to prevent the pleas¬ 
ant things which have been vouchsafed to us from being deformed and defaced 
by the hand of man in the future.” 

I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the great prerogative of this Com¬ 
mittee is, — and more than any committee of the Legislature does it 
have it in its power by the recommendations which it shall make,— 
to keep things pure where the}’ are now pure, and to redress evils 
which exist, so far as those evils alfect the health and comfort of the 
community. 

We do not any of us expect that in an age of development, when 
we are gradually increasing the population of our cities upon and 
along the banks of all our running streams, — when industries are 
growing up, farms are being cultivated, civilization, in fact, is creep¬ 
ing in, — we do not expect those streams will run precisely as they 
ran in earlier times. There will be more or less impurity. But the 
impurity that comes from the natural and ordinary growth of popu¬ 
lation, the drainage from the banks, is one thing; the impurity that 
comes from the deliberate, systematic act of a municipal corporation 
is another thing. The one is not, in the ordinary nature of things, 
either injurious on the one hand, or preventable on the other. The 
other causes serious injury, and at the same time it is easily pre¬ 
vented. 

The case, gentlemen, that comes before you here is the most seri¬ 
ous one that has ever been presented to a Legislature in this Com¬ 
monwealth, as regards both the present evil and the necessary future 
consequences. It is the case of a great, rich, powerful, and prosper¬ 
ous city, deliberately — not through malice, of course, but still delib¬ 
erately — relieving itself of all its filth and nastiness, which would be 
a source of disease if kept within its own limits, and putting it where 
it must inevitably, in a greater or less period of time, become a 
source of disease to others. That is the proposition which I propose 
to establish; and I must pause here at the outset, although I shall 
have occasion again to refer to it, to ask the Committee to consider 
how the parties stand with reference to this controversy. On the 
one hand are these petitioners of Millbury, the inhabitants of a small 
town, and their neighbors in the little towns below r them upon the 
river, who confessedly are without influence or power in the Legis¬ 
lature, as compared with the power which a great city can bring to 
bear, coming up to the Legislature, for a second time, to state their 
grievances, pointing to the long record of the State Board of Health, 
which has been for a great many years calling the attention of the 
public to the serious pollution of the Blackstone River by the city 


331 


% 


of Worcester, — coming up here and saying that the health of their 
community has been affected ; that their children have sickened and 
died ; that their schools have been dismissed ; that the workmen in 
their mills have been unable to continue in the regular discharge of 
their duties ; that their physicians have advised them that there is 
great danger of more extended disease, — bringing the trusted repre¬ 
sentative of the State upon the State Board of Health, and the 
experts whom the State Board of Health have appointed, to confirm 
their statement, and saying that, in their belief, in their honest belief, 
this evil has increased, and is likely to increase. They have also 
said — and I took particular pleasure in saying it at the outset of 
this hearing — that they did not consider, and intended to make no 
charge, that Worcester had intentionally done them any wrong; 
that the}" had refrained from all legal proceedings against the city 
because they knew that there were representative and leading men 
there who admitted the wrong, and were looking about for some 
proper wa}^ to remedy it. They came to the Legislature, there¬ 
fore, in the full expectation that, upon the statement of their case 
and the production of their evidence, the city of Worcester would 
join with them in asking the Legislature for something practical that 
would lead to the reform of this abuse. 

I stated, in opening for the petitioners, that w r e did not suppose, 
in view of the Report of the State Board of Health, and of the evi¬ 
dence that was taken by this Committee last }*ear, that the question 
of the seriousness of this nuisance would be contested at all. I was 
very much surprised when I was told, by the learned counsel for the 
city, that they denied that a nuisance existed ; that they proposed to 
contest that fact. And now, in his closing argument before you, he 
has undertaken to assert that no nuisance exists ; that nothing call¬ 
ing for the attention of the Legislature has been proved ; and every 
suggestion of the evils that have been caused, and that are appre¬ 
hended, is treated with the utmost levity. From the beginning to the 
end, the position of the learned city solicitor — and I desire to speak 
of him, not as an individual, but as the representative of the city 
authorities — from the beginning to the end of this hearing, the ob¬ 
ject of the learned counsel has been to turn our case into ridicule. 
When our witnesses testified that there was illness in their families, 
that the little children were sick, that this horrible stuff that was 
being put into our river at the rate of twenty-two thousand tons a 

vear was the cause of disease, and was affecting our people, the an- 

•/ 

swer has been to ask our witnesses, “ Didn’t you have a grand¬ 
mother who lived to an old age? ” k ‘ How old was this or that resi¬ 
dent? ” And the attempt has been made to turn off with a laugh the 
suggestion that this terrible pollution caused any real trouble. 




332 


I said, in the beginning of this case, that some of the most promi¬ 
nent citizens of Worcester fully appreciated the character of this 
injury that was being done ; and 1 quoted from Senator Hoar, to 
the effect that “ he would rather Worcester should pay one million 
dollars than do a wrong to one of these towns. It is a great and 
serious thing to poison the air, to pollute the streams, or destroy the 
health of the homes of a town like Millbury or Sutton or North- 
bridge or Uxbridge or Blackstone. Worcester must call to her aid 
all the resources of science, all the experience of other cities and 
countries, all the ingenuity of mechanic art, to avoid such a result, 
whatever may be the cost. For one, he desired his representatives in 
che Legislature to meet the question in this spirit.” 

That was the position which Senator Hoar took. I am told that 
exactly the same position was taken, at the same meeting, by the 
Hon. Mr. Rice ; although his remarks are not reported in the paper 
from which I cut this extract. But the point to which I am calling 
your attention, gentlemen, is this: that although prominent individ¬ 
uals in Worcester have taken this position, although to-day there are 
a great man}' men of humane instincts, and high sense of honor, and 
proper regard for the rights of people below them, who are in accord 
with Senator Hoar, and who see in what he said the utterances of a 
just and high-minded citizen, who despised the selfish view of the 
question,—yet, that when we come to deal with the city of Wor¬ 
cester, we must deal with it as a corporation, as with any other 
corporation; we must take the utterances of its agents who are 
presented before us. My point is, that the city, so far as its au¬ 
thorized utterances are concerned, is undertaking to ridicule the 
position of these petitioners, and to make light of the evils that 
they fear. Why, gentlemen, there has been placed before you a 
document of such an extraordinary nature, that, if it had not come 
in under the express approval of the city of Worcester, I should 
not have deemed myself justified in referring to it. I should have 
been told, I think with propriety, that such a screed as this was not 
worthy the attention of an intelligent committee. But, early in this 
hearing, the city solicitor took particular pains to la}’ before you a 
report of the Commission of Public Grounds of the city of Worcester 
for the year ending Nov. 30, 1881, in which, apparently by special 
request, a discussion of this question of sewage is made by that 
board. I beg the Committee to notice what is said, because it is in 
exact line with, and appears to have been the text for, the argument 
that has been addressed to you here. I ask you, gentlemen, whether 
or not it is in accord with the rules of morality or of law to which you 
have been accustomed. And, speaking of the rules of morality, I 
may say that they appear to have been changed in the Worcester 


333 


code. As I understand the learned solicitor, the old law of morals, 
the Golden Rule, “ Do unto others as ye would that they should 
do to you,” is obsolete; and a new maxim has come into play,— 
“ Do as the others do.” But here is the document; and I read, from 
the 22 d page of this extraordinary communication : — 

“These petitioners from Millbury — owners of obsolete ‘privileges’ — as¬ 
sert that they have been sick at times; and they elect to attribute their ill- 
health to Worcester sewage. But all think it worse — i.e., the sewage — the 
nigher to Worcester. If so, the chief occupation of Worcester itself, instead 
of a demand for sash and blinds, should be the interment of its population. 
And, considering every thing, our last state does not appear to be much worse 
than our first. 

“ Is Worcester to be held answerable because Benjamin Flagg did not feel 
as vigorous or well at seventy odd as when a young man ? ” 

That gentleman, the father of my associate in this case, died this 
last 3 ’ear from causes attributable, in the opinion of his physician, to 
this Worcester sewage. 

“Shall Worcester respond in damages because medical men fancy that their 
town is not in quite as good sanitary condition as when it was one half or third 
its present size? Although the tables of mortality in Millbury show but 74 
deaths in 1881, whereas there were 93 in 1880! 

“ Is Worcester to be subjected to the untold cost of repeating experiments 
that have nowhere proved successful, because mill-ponds fill up, and streams 
become sluggish and shallow, where dams are almost as frequent as the feet of 
fall?” 

On p. 24, the writer of this report, the Chairman of the Commis¬ 
sion, says,— 

“When and where do those indisputable rights take their rise and find their 
origin? Who shall determine them? and how? A pioneer at the head-waters 
builds au out-house that discharges into the stream. The right of a commu¬ 
nity to build its privies in that manner, if it elects such improvident way, is 
surely as imprescriptible and fixed as the concession, or ‘privilege,’ of a soli¬ 
tary individual, here or there, to dam that stream, check its flow, stifle its 
current, and stagnate its water.” 

On p. 26 he says, — 

“ If experiments are to be tried, let Millbury and her neighbors reverse the 
Blackstone, Singletary, Ramshorn, and Quinsigamond, over their intervales, 
and pocket the profits! Worcester does enough vjhen she wastes her substance in 
the effluent stream; for that it is waste is obvious, though not susceptible of 
prevention or remedy.” 

Now, I say, for a document of that kind to be put forth by a pub¬ 
lic commission, and to be presented by the authorized representative 
of the city of Worcester to this Committee as an answer to the repre¬ 
sentation of these people in Millbury, and that neighborhood, that 
they are suffering from this dreadful curse of the sewage of Worces- 


334 


ter being turned upon them, is as cruel and unprovoked an insult as 
could possibly be given. At least, we might have had the sympathy 
of the authorities of Worcester; at least, it might have been said to 
us, “ We are very sorry for the condition in which 3 ’ou are, but it is 
not in our power to remedy it.” But we are taunted by the fact 
that “ Worcester does enough when she wastes her substance in the 
effluent stream,” and that we poor people of Millbury and vicinity 
ought to be thankful to Worcester that we have the benefit of receiv- 
ing the excreta of her citizens ! I saj T , Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
that that document, put in here as a representation of the ground 
taken b}’ the city of Worcester, a concentrated sneer at the position 
of the petitioners, is as inhuman, as unfair, as any thing could possi¬ 
bly be. As I said before, if I had seen it in a newspaper, and had 
quoted it, I should have expected to have been told by some member 
of the Committee that it was not worthy of repetition as representing 
the views of a great city; but, when the counsel of the city brings it 
before the Committee with the weight of his authoritv and indorse- 
ment, it is important as indicating the position of one party to this 
controversy 

That is not all, gentlemen. I have undertaken to show that the 

% 

position that has been taken here on behalf of the city is a very ex¬ 
traordinary one ; although, as I have said, there are individual citizens 
of Worcester who have frankly admitted the obligations of the city 
as strongly as I could state them. I want now to call your attention 
to an incident which happened in the course of this hearing. I refer 
to the testimony of the mayor. The maj'or of Worcester is a gentle¬ 
man of honorable instincts and high intelligence, and a man whom, 
individually, I have no doubt, the people of Millbury, or the people 
of Worcester, would be perfectly justified in trusting to determine 
any matter that might be presented to him. He came before you in 
his representative capacity as mayor of the city ; and he stated fairly, 
and, as far as I could see, with strict regard for the interests of the 
city of Worcester, the position which the city took in this contro¬ 
versy. In answer, however, to some questions that were put him, 
mainly by the Chairman of the Committee, he stated his individual 
views as to what ought to be done, or might be done, in the way of 
remedying this evil, suggesting a plan which he did not feel sure was 
adequate to the case, but which, nevertheless, he, with considerable 
reluctance, expressed his willingness to agree to ; and he intimated 
that if the Committee should report a bill which should give permis¬ 
sion to the city of Worcester to use such instrumentalities as it saw 
fit for remedying this evil, such a bill would be acceptable. He took 
occasion, however, at every stage of his testimony, to qualify it with 
the statement that lie spoke merely as an individual, and not as a 


t 


335 


representative of the city. That fact indicated, I think, to the Com¬ 
mittee — it certainly did to me — the sort of terror under which an 
official of the city of Worcester must speak, that he cannot express a 
humane instinct without danger of being called to account by some¬ 
body ; that he cannot suggest a possible remedy, at a veiy slight 
expense, for a great evil, without its being regarded as treachery to 
the city'; and pretty soon, gentlemen, the echoes came back from 
Worcester of public opinion as to the dreadful heresy committed by 
the ma 3 'or. “ The Worcester Spy,” under date of March 18, had an 
article on the subject, entitled u The Sewage Problem : ” — 

“ Mayor Stoddard’s testimony yesterday, before the Committee investigating 
the pollution of the Blackstone River, was somttvliat disconcerting to the city 
solicitor and other representatives of Worcester's interests present , and in an 
equal degree encouraging to the petitioners for relief from the alleged grievance. 
It was freely said in the committee-room, and in this city, after the substance 
of his testimony was known here, that the mayor had given away the city's case. 
But that seems to be an extravagant statement, prompted by an exaggerated 
estimate of the importance of Col. Stoddard’s admissions. There is no doubt 
that the stream is polluted; that the pollution tends to increase with the increase 
of population and the growth of manufactures in the Blackstone valley; that 
the pollution is an evil and a growing evil. So much Col. Stoddard admitted; 
and, if the case of the city of Worcester rests upon the disproof of these propo¬ 
sitions, it is a hopeless case. It is not conceded, however, by Col. Stoddard, 
or anybody else authorized to speak for the city of Worcester, that the pollution 
of the stream has been, or can be proved to be, injurious to the health of the 
people of the valley, nor that the city of Worcester, in so far as it has contrib¬ 
uted to the impurities of the stream, has exceeded in the least its strict legal 
rights, nor that it is under any obligation in law, morals, courtesy, or good 
neighborhood to purify the stream at its own expense, nor that it could do so 
while the mills above and below are pouring their refuse into the stream, nor 
that, if it were right and practicable for the city to do this, either of the plans 
submitted on behalf of the petitioners is reasonable, or would be effectual with¬ 
out causing inconveniences at least as great as those it was expected to remove.” 

There follows a general discussion of the subject which it is not 
material to read. The particular point of the article is a criticism 
upon Mayor Stoddard ; because, in answer to perfectly proper ques¬ 
tions addressed to him on the part of the Committee, he gave certain 
opinions, which he qualified in every instance by saying that they 
were his individual opinions. I do not wonder, however, that a city 
government which is controlled by the spirit which dictated the 
“ Report of the Commission of Public Grounds” should call Mayor 
Stoddard to account for merely expressing the natural desire of an 
honorable gentleman to alleviate the miseries which his city was 
causing. 

That is not all, gentlemen. I am considering the attitude of the 
authorities of the city of-Worcester, which is a very important ques¬ 
tion when you come to deal with the form of law to be recommended. 


336 


You would make one bill for a city that was read} 7 and anxious to do 
its full duty, and which appreciated the extent of the evil to be reme¬ 
died, and quite another bill for a city which was resolutely and ob¬ 
stinately set against doing any thing for the people whom it had 
injured, and which claimed that the} 7 were not hurt at all. 

I refer now to the treatment which has been given here to the 
experts who have been called. Why, gentlemen, if this case had 
been tried in a criminal court, you could hardly have had bitterer and 
more sarcastic abuse upon the experts employed. 

Now, gentlemen, who are these men who are thus ridiculed and 
attacked? What is their position in the case? What right has the 
city of Worcester to authorize or direct its representative to treat 
them in this way? Consider, gentlemen, that the State Board of 
Health has held but one position on this question from the time when 
the first report was written, to the last. Last year, in an argument 
addressed to this Committee, I called attention to the names of the 
gentlemen who constituted the State Board of Health that made the 
first extensive investigation of this subject. They were Dr. Henry I. 
Bowditch, Warren Sawyer, Richard Frothingham, R. T. Davis, Dr. 
George Derby, P. Emory Aldrich (now Judge of the Superior Court, 
and then and now one of the foremost citizens of Worcester), and 
G. B. Fox of Lowell. That was the Board of Health (some of them 
distinguished physicians, as you all know) which made the report of 
1873 ; and in that report they said,— 

“ We do not hesitate to say that a scheme for the treatment of the sewage is 
practicable. At the request of the secretary of the board, Mr. Phineas Ball, 
civil engineer of Worcester, has prepared a statement of a plan which he has 
in his own mind, by which the sewage may be collected, and conducted to a point 
below the city, where there is abundance of land suitable for arranging a filter 
on a large scale, or where the sewage may be applied for purposes of irriga¬ 
tion.” 

That was the*report of 1873. You will seanch the records of the 
board from that time to this in vain to find any thing inconsistent 
with this position. They have always spoken of it as an evil; they 
have spoken of it as an increasing evil; they have spoken of it as 
one that might be prevented, and one that the city of Worcester 
ought to prevent. They have pointed out a method which could be 
adopted. When, therefore, my friend comes in and ridicules our 
position, and says that we have not been hurt, that there is no danger 
of our being hurt, and that there is no need of remedying it, if we 
have been hurt, — I say, here is the State Board of Health, an im¬ 
partial tribunal, that for years and years has been calling the atten¬ 
tion of the Legislature and the public to this trouble. With this 
steady action of the Board of Health in mind, consider the position 


337 


of the experts. Take Dr. Walcott. He was not selected by us; we 
had nothing to do with his appointment on this commission; he was 
requested to serve b}' the Board of Health, because of his peculiar 
ability and experience. He has been the health-officer of that board. 
In his report, he speaks of this pollution of the Blackstone as a nui¬ 
sance, and describes a remedy, which, in his judgment, would be 
efficient. Now, what occasion is there for attempting to depreciate 
the testimony of so experienced, intelligent, and impartial a medical 
man as is Dr. Walcott? Why should he not be listened to with 
respect and confidence when he says, “ In m} r judgment there is a 
nuisance there, and this nuisance can be abated and ought to be 
abated”? * 

Then, take Dr. Folsom. My learned friend had a good many com¬ 
ments to make on Dr. Folsom, and referred depreciatingly to his tes¬ 
timony. We had no more to do with the selection of Dr. Folsom to 
make these investigations than had the city of Worcester. 

Mr. Goulding. In what terms did I refer depreciatingly, either to 
Dr. Folsom or Dr. Walcott? Anybody who heard m} r argument 
knows that I made no such statement with reference to either of those 
gentlemen. I referred to them ; I did not depreciate them; I dis¬ 
cussed their report, and showed what it actually said. 

Mr. Morse. I accept the gentleman’s statement; and when we 
come to read the report of his argument, if what I have said is an 
incorrect representation of his remarks, I shall regret to have 
made it; but my recollection is most distinct that the gentleman 
argued to this Committee that the position of these petitioners was 
wrong, in so far as it claimed that any nuisance existed ; that it was 
ridiculous, and that no serious trouble existed there ; and, further, 
that he did undertake to depreciate the testimony of Dr. Folsom and 
Dr. Walcott, inasmuch as they both state that in their opinion there 
is now trouble serious enough to demand action. I understand that 
to be their position, and I do not understand it to be acceptable to 
my friend. I understand that his argument was to satisfy you that 
these gentlemen had exaggerated the troubles, and that their judg¬ 
ment in regard to the remedy was not to be relied upon. 

Mr. Goulding. If failure to accept their position is depreciating 
their evidence, then it is so ; but in no other sense did I depreciate 
their evidence. 

Mr. Morse. Well, I will not spend time in discussing that. If I 
have inadvertently misrepresented my friend, of course the argument 
will speak for itself when it is printed. 

I come now to another gentleman, about whom I suppose my friend 
will not have any question. I suppose that there is no doubt that he 
did depreciate Col. Wearing, and intended to depicciate him. I sup- 


888 


pose there is no doubt that he held him up to ridicule, and intended 
to do so ; and I may fairly claim that he did undertake to make fun 
of his statements, and to treat his recommendations without any 
respect whatever. Now, gentlemen, the position of Col. Waring 
is too well known to require any statement from me. I happen 
to have in my hand a report of a committee of the town of West- 
borough on a system of sewerage, which was submitted on the 8th of 
August, 1881 ; and I refer to it to notice incidentally the broad way 
in which they deal with the question, but principally to show the 
weight that the}' give to the opinion of the gentleman of whom the 
city solicitor thinks so lightly. 

They say, — 

“ Your Committee from the outset have been deeply impressed with a sense 
of the great importance of the subject intrusted to their investigation, not only 
in regard to its sanitary hearing, but as involving a large pecuniary outlay. 
For, while most men regard no outlay too large that promises speedy returns in 
dollars and cents, they hesitate, and doubt the necessity of putting out money 
for what to them is an uncertain return in improved sanitary conditions, — in a 
possible deliverance from many of the ills that afflict communities, aud in be¬ 
queathing, not only increased length of days to the individual, but, as cleanli¬ 
ness is said to be next to godliness, in thereby improving the whole moral con¬ 
dition of society. Yet, next to the supply of a plenty of good water, — the 
convenience and blessing of which none are so low as not to recognize, —comes 
the question of how shall, the waste and filth, which its greatly enlarged use has 
gathered up in its countless errands of mercy, be disposed of so as not to entail 
a curse and a scourge in exchange for the blessing of an abundant water-supply ? 
The subject is new, not only to a large proportion of individuals in any com¬ 
munity, but to a great majority of communities throughout the world.” 

They then speak of the steps which they took to get information 
upon this important subject; and after referring to the fact that the} 7 
employed Mr. Ball of Worcester, and Mr. Heald, as civil engineers, 
and obtained certain recommendations from them, they go on to 
say, — 

“ Your Committee, after duly considering this report, felt that the outlay of 
so large a sum for little more than a bare beginning of a system of sewerage 
would be greater than the town would feel justified in entering upon at the 
present time: yet feeling that something ought to be and could be done that 
would meet the present and all reasonably prospective needs of the town, at a 
much less expenditure of money, and having also become somewhat acquainted, 
through Mr. Ball, and his assistant Mr. Heald, with what is known as ‘ The Mem¬ 
phis System of Sewerage ,’ they determined to call to their aid Col. George E. 
Waring, jun., of Newport, It. I., the acknowledged foremost sanitary engineer in 
the United Stales, if not in Europe also.” 

They then give at length the recommendations which he makes, and 
upon which they report favorably to the town. Of course, it is not 
necessary to refer to that report as evidence of what you, gentlemen, 
particularly the medical men upon your board, know perfectly well, 


339 


that Col. Waring is the highest authority in this country upon 
sanitary engineering; and when the town of Millbury, in its desire 
to aid the city of Worcester, in response to the request of the State 
Board of Health, in solving this difficult problem, sought to find a 
man whose views would be of peculiar value, it went to one of 
national, not to say international, reputation. Now, why should that 
gentleman, who has simply come here and given expression to his 
honest views, be attacked? Apparently for two reasons: first, be¬ 
cause he mentioned the fact’that sewers in ancient times were not 
used for the purpose of carrying away the contents of privies; and, 
second^, because he said that Worcester seemed not to be averse to 
giving to others a scourge which it was unwilling to concentrate upon 
itself. Those are the two expressions which particularly called forth 
the animadversions of my friend. Now, what did Col. Waring say 
on this subject? 

“ Under all ancient practices, a sewer is only a drain and channel for the re¬ 
moval of waters which the proper enjoyment of territory requires to be removed. 
Until well into tlie present century this was probably the only meaning of the 
term; and, up to that time, the office of a sewer was simply to furnish a safe 
outlet for rain-water, for soil-water, for the overflow of the backing-up of 
streams, etc. The use of these sewers for the removal of excrementitious and 
other refuse matters is very recent. In Boston, according to Mr. Eliot C. 
Clarke, as late as 1833, and in England much later, the admission of foul mat¬ 
ters was prohibited.” 

I do not find in the poetical quotations with which the learned city 

solicitor entertained us as an answer to this statement a single thing 

» 

that is inconsistent with it. That surface drainage in ancient times 
may have carried with it many substances which were regarded as 
foul then, and would be regarded as foul now, I have no doubt; but 
that sewers were established in the sense in which the term is used 
to-day, for the purpose of removing the contents of privies, is not 
proved, even by “ Troilus and Cressida.” On the contraiy, on a 
subject of that kind, I should prefer to take the testimony of scientific 
men like Col. Waring, and the researches of a practical engineer like 
Mr. Clarke, rather than a line from Shakspeare or even old Stow. 

Then, gentlemen, as to the other expression of Col. Waring, that 
Worcester was not averse to turning this sewage into the stream, 
and thereby inflicting on others evils which it was unwilling to con¬ 
centrate upon itself. Is not that a true statement of the case? Is 
Worcester averse to doing it? I wish she was. If Worcester was 
averse to doing it, we should have no occasion to come before you. 
It is because she is not, that we are under the necessity of applying 
for legislation. 

Now, gentlemen, to sum up this part of the case, what I have 
endeavored to show is, that notwithstanding all that has been said and 


340 


written on this subject by men of science who have been appointed, 
in the discharge of a public duty, to investigate this matter, and not¬ 
withstanding all that has been shown in the course of this hearing, 
the city' of Worcester, so far as its official representatives are con¬ 
cerned, makes no response to the representations of Millbury and her 
neighbors, but to discredit them and turn them aside. “It is none 
of our business,” they say; “we only do what others do, and you 
must save yourselves.” That is substantially their position, their 
official position. I beg to be distinctly ‘understood as not referring to 
individuals who have expressed a different opinion. But you must 
deal with them as a corporation, and that is their position before 
this Legislature. The}' contend that the evils upon the Blackstone 
River do not exist or are greatly exaggerated, and they take a deter¬ 
mined stand against doing any thing to remedy them. 

My attention is called to a paragraph in “ The Worcester Gazette,” 
of the 20th of* March, 1882, which seems to illustrate what I have 
said: — 

“ In view of the unexpected character of the testimony of Mayor Stoddard, 
at the sewage investigation at Boston on Friday, a meeting of the Sewer Com¬ 
mittee was called Saturday afternoon, at the request of City-Solicitor Goulding. 
All the members were present; and on consultation it appeared that they and 
the solicitor had a common understanding of the position of the city in the 
case, and his course was fully approved. He has conducted the case in con¬ 
formity to the views of the Committee, and no occasion was found to change 
his instructions or to make any new suggestions; but, in view of the use that 
may be made of the mayor’s position, it was thought best to put the views of 
the Committee in form. 

“It was therefore unanimously voted, by a yea and nay vote, that the Com¬ 
mittee have intended to conduct, and propose to continue to couduct, the de¬ 
fence of the city on the grounds that the city is using Mill Brook as a sewer by 
virtue of legislative authority which has not been violated; that there is no 
such nuisance as is claimed by the petitioners; that no plan based on theory, 
yet suggested, nor which may he suggested, can justly be forced upon the city, 
while other cities and towns are equally interested; and the city solicitor is 
directed to defend on these grounds, and to take entire charge and direction of 
the case on behalf of the city. 

“The mayor was present, and made some explanations designed to convince 
the Committee that his position did not tend to compromise the city’s case, and 
did not conflict with the position of the city. In view of his position,—that 
he is not a member of joint standing committees,—his name was not called 
when the vote was taken.” 

The Chairman. I want to say one thing right here. I am very 
much surprised at the criticisms upon the mayor which appear by 
the articles which have been read. The answers of the mayor he 
was led into by questions put by the Committee, and mainly by my¬ 
self as I remember, having been prompted by a line of thought that 
was in my mind at the time. He did not compromise the city of 


341 


Worcester; and his answers were proper, and apparently those of an 
honest man. I hold that when a man comes upon the stand to testify, 
whether he is a mayor or a private citizen, he is bound cither to 
answer truthfully or to decline to answer at all. In this case the 
mayor gave certain answers in which there was a distinction between 
what he said as representing the city and what he said as a citizen. 
He answered, no doubt, honestly; and I am surprised that he should 
have been criticised for an} 7 thing he said, and think it injudicious 
that these criticisms should have appeared in print. 

Mr. Goulding. I desire to say, if you will allow me, that the 
appearance of those articles in the papers was without my knowledge 
and against my desire. 

The Chairman. I had no reason to think otherwise, but I felt that 
it was proper to take this occasion to say what I have said. The 
natural conclusion to be drawn from these criticisms is, that the 
mayor ought either to have refused to answer, or to have uttered 
something besides the truth when he did answer. Such criticisms 
tend more in the direction of harm to the city of Worcester than any 
thing which the mayor said in his testimony. 

Mr. Morse. I am much obliged to the Chairman for his remarks. 
They are a proper comment on the conduct of the Worcester Commit¬ 
tee on Sewerage in undertaking to pass this vote, which I submit was 
intended to be covertly a rebuke to the mayor for the position he had 
taken. All this discussion has proved that a most extraordinary 
pressure has been brought to bear from some source in Worcester, 
and that a man is not permitted to breathe even the ordinary instincts 
of humanity upon a subject of this kind without being at once pub¬ 
licly and officially rebuked. 

Having thus called your attention to the attitude of these parties, 
I come to consider the evidence as to the nuisance. I shall not 
discuss merely the chemical analyses. We all understand the value 
of chemical analysis. For the purpose of ascertaining the component 
parts of a given solid or liquid there is no method so exact or satis- 
factorv. But we also know that the value of the analyses as a basis 
for action depends very much upon who takes the samples, when the 
samples are taken, and for what object they are taken. It is possi¬ 
ble to prove any thing by figures. My learned friend, for example, 
succeeded in demonstrating to the Committee, yesterday, by chemi¬ 
cal analysis, that the water of the Blackstone was purer than the 
Cochituate, and that the people of Millbury, therefore, could drink 
the water of the Blackstone with more safety than the citizens of 
Boston drink the Cochituate. If his argument is good for any thing, 
it proves that; it is established beyond controversy; the citizens of 
Millbury can rest upon it. He has proved it by the comparative table 


342 


of chemical analyses that he produced. Now, gentlemen, I am not 
going to attempt to argue to this Committee as to the effect produced 
upon this water by turning this enormous quantity of sewage into 
it. Here is Mill Brook, which receives 3,000,000 gallons of sewage 
per da}r. That sewage comprises every thing that is foul and dis¬ 
gusting in the refuse of 40,000 of the inhabitants of Worcester. The 
stream which receives it has a minimum dry-weather flow of not 
more than 1,000,000 gallons. Its waters, thus polluted, are turned 
into the Blackstone River, in immediate proximity to and within two 
or three miles, certainly., of a considerable town, where there are 
dams which were in existence long before the Act under which the 
cit} T thus discharges its sewage. These dams necessarity arrest a 
veiy large part of the solid matter that comes through the sewers. It 
is not necessary, at this day, to discuss the injurious effects of sew¬ 
age and sewer gases upon the health. Are they not established 
beyond all controversy? Does not every practising physician on this 
Committee, in investigating the causes of disease properly attribu¬ 
table to an}’ trouble of this sort, look first to ascertain whether there 
is any defect in drainage b}’ which sewer gas can possibly have 
escaped into the House? Is there an} T case of disease so potent, or 
any one to which physicians have directed their attention so much, 
during the last few years? 

Let me read, in this connection, a single sentence from Dr. Alfred 
Carpenter’s lectures on “Preventive Medicine in Relation to the 
Public Health,’’ which sums up the facts in relation to the effect of 
sewer gases. On p. 97, he says, — 

“The influence of sewer-air in setting up disease, in permitting and spread¬ 
ing epidemics, and keeping disease among us in the endemic form, need not now 
be insisted on. You may take from me that it is an undoubted scientific fact.” 

Now, Mr. Chairman, ny proposition is this: We ma}^ differ among 
us as - to the extent to which this evil has now grown. Some of }’on 
gentlemen may believe it is more serious, others may think it is 
less serious ; but we shall agree, I think, in this : that there is an evil, 
and that its tendency is to increase, and that the only tendency of 
the carrying of this sewage matter down the Blackstone River is to 
create disease; it is not a health-giving operation. This mixed 
mass of filth must leave somewhere a certain amount of solid residue, 
which will constantly be giving off gases that are noxious. It will 
pollute the water to a greater or less extent. It is true that a running 
stream tends to purify itself; and if the stream is large enough, and 
runs far enough, it may eventually dissolve the impurities that are 
in it. But tne State Board of Health, in an article to which I called 
attention in the examination of Mr. Worthen, distinctly stated that 


343 


the popular notion in reference to the amount of oxidation that is 
produced in a running stream is erroneous ; and they quote high 
authority to the effect that there must be in every stream which car¬ 
ries polluted matter a certain amount, greater or less, of noxious 
substances and gases. Mr. Worthen undertook in some wav to 
criticise that opinion ; but his statements were very vague: and so 
far as he differed from the State Board of Health, and the authorities 
which they cite, I doubt very much whether you would be disposed 
to follow him as against them. But he differed from them only as to 
the degree of pollution. Neither he nor any other intelligent man 
will doubt the proposition that it pollutes a stream to put sewage 
into it. And upon the testimony of Mr. Worthen himself, there can 
be no question but that this evil, within a comparatively short time, 
will be serious enough to demand legislation. Mr. Worthen said 
that if the entire population of Worcester were now to drain into 
Blackstone River, he would consider the evil so serious that some¬ 
thing should be done about it. Only he thought, that, so long as the 
sewers were used by forty thousand out of the fifty-eight thousand 
people, it might be safe to wait; that no very great risk would be 
run. That is the extreme proposition, stated b} r their own expert, — 
that it may be safe to let this thing stand where it is to-day; but if 
the present entire population of Worcester should use the same, and, 
still more, if Worcester grows as it must grow in the future, there will 
be an amount of pollution that will make purification a necessity. 

I shall not trouble the Committee with details of the evidence, 
except in a very few instances ; but I must notice the testimon}’ of 
three or four gentlemen whose position in Millbury or the other towns 
is such that they are specially entitled to a candid consideration. 

Take first the testimony of the Rev. Philip Y. Smith, which is 
found upon p. 60 of the report. He was asked,— 

“ Q. — Are you familiar with the schools? A. —Yes, sir: I am a member of 
the board. 

“ Q. — In your opinion, does the pollution of the river affect the salubrity of 
the air about those schools? A. — In the Saundersville school — 

“Q. —How far is Saundersville from Wilkinsonville? A. — A little less than 
half a mile, in a straight line, from the Sutton depot. 

“ q. —Now, will you tell about the effect of the river upon the air at those 
schools? A. — In the months of April and May last, during the latter part of 
April, and two weeks in May, the schools in Saundersville were very much 
depleted, so that in one school, for at least ten days, there were only six schol¬ 
ars out of an average attendance of upwards of fifty-four; and in the upper 
school I think they were reduced to nine, out of an average of forty-five. The 
prevailing troubles there were measles and scarlatina, with diphtheria. There 
were two cases of diphtheria near my house. The children who were sick 
attended that school. Their names were Annie and Susie Redpath. They 
were attended by Dr. Thomas T. Griggs of Grafton. 


344 


“ Q. —Wliat was the state of health among the children in the other schools 
in Grafton; that is, away from the river? A. —In the Centre, the number of 
scholars was not as small from similar causes as in the schools nfearer the river. 

“ Q. —That is, I understand, the sickness was not as great in the other 
schools as in those by the river? A. —That is my understanding, sir.” 

There is the statement of a gentleman entitled to belief, who occu¬ 
pies a responsible position in connection with the schools of Grafton, 
that, in one school the number of children had been reduced b}^ sick¬ 
ness from an average attendance of fifty-four to six, and in another, 

• 

from an average of forty-five to nine. This happened last summer. 
A year ago the city of Worcester opposed any attempt at a remecty; 
and, since that action, these troubles have come. How many cases 
of illness of children are to happen before something is done? Are 
we to go on another year, and then undertake to show that more chil¬ 
dren have been sick, and more schools depleted, onty to be met again 
with the intimation that our dangers are imaginary? Have you any 
reason, gentlemen, to doubt the testimony of Mr. Smith? He tells 
you that the prevailing troubles in those schools were measles, scarla¬ 
tina, and diphtheria. Now, it may be true, that in an individual cAse 
here or there, there ma } 7 be a mistake. I will agree with my friends 
that it is entirety possible for diseases to be misunderstood and mis¬ 
called, and, in some cases of local excitement, for troubles to be 
exaggerated. But, making allowance for all those things, I ask you, 
gentlemen, whether you doubt that serious illness among these chil¬ 
dren was due to the polluted atmosphere in which they lived. 

Take, then, the testimony of Dr. Wilmot, which 3^011 will find on 
p. 65 of the report. He is a practising physician living in Farnums- 
ville, which is a village of Grafton. He is questioned as follows : — 

“ Q-—From your experience in Farnumsville, what do you say as to the 
effect upon the general health of the people of the present pollution of the 
river? A. —I should say it was decidedly injurious. 

“ Q -—Your practice is not confined to Farnumsville, but extends, does it 
not, to Saundersville. Wilkinsonville, and other villages? A. — Saundersville, 
Wilkinsonville, Sutton, and down as far as Whitins’ and North Uxbridge. 

“ Q. — Now, will you state to the Committee any particular facts that you 
have noticed 111 regaid to the effect of the river upon health? A. — I have 
noticed that, at low water, when the shores were exposed to the rays of the sun, 
the emanations were still more disagreeable and cogent, and also that the river 
was of a disgusting appearance, black and nasty, and at all seasons of the year 
had a certain amount of smell. 

“ Q' — VY nat sicknesses have you noticed during your practice there? A. _ 

There is a prevailing sickness, which is scarcely worthy the full name of typhoid 
fever. It is more like an intermittent fever. There is no distinct medical name 
for it. It assumes all the appearance of a mild typhoid, without going into the 
extreme stage of it, put put (B , without having the purple spots, which are symp¬ 
tomatic of the true typhoid fever, but producing lassitude and debility for some 


345 


five or six weeks. It goes under the common name in the country of “ slow 
fever. 

“ Q. —Do you ascribe the cause of this disease to the river, wholly or in 
part? A. —To a gVeat extent, I think it is, sir, particularly at low water. 
There are two cases in particular that I can state to you. I refer to two sisters 
in the village of Rochdale. 

u — In what town is Rochdale? A. —I cannot say. 

u Q' — Is it not in Northbridge? A. — I think it is. In this village the pond 
was drained very low. It was drained down lower than the average of the 
ponds along the river, while they were making some repairs or alterations on 
the dam. That was none of my business, and I did not inquire what they 
were. The smell from the pond there was frightful. There is no modification 
of the word required, — it was perfectly frightful. It was worse than the 
wards of a hospital. 

“ Q. —What did it smell like? A. —It smelt exactly like a water-closet, — 
‘ sulphuretted hydrogen ’ is the scientific term, — and continued for some 
length of time. The repairs were extensive that they were making.” 

There was an attempt, in the cross-examination of this witness, or 
some witness, to show that all rivers smell badly when the water is 
low. That is true undoubtedly ; but when an educated physician like 
Dr. Wilmot comes here and tells } T ou that “ the smell from the pond 
there was frightful, there is no modification of the word required, — it 
was perfectly frightful; it was worse than the wards of a hospital; it 
smelt exactly like a water-closet,' — ‘ sulphuretted hydrogen,’ ” —the 
Committee will not suppose that he is describing an ordinary river odor. 
Is it to be said that he has exaggerated and misrepresented? Can 
it be that there is some peculiar quality in the sewage of Worcester 
that it does not produce the results which other sewage produces? 
and that when this filth and excrement comes down from ’Worcester 
and settles in these ponds, gases are not given off such as privies 
ordinarily discharge? What is it, gentlemen, but making of those 
ponds the privies of the city of Worcester? 

I call your attention to the testimony of Dr. Lincoln on pp. 94 and 
95. Dr. Lincoln is a practising physician in Millbury, and has been 
there for sixteen }’ears. He is asked, — 

“ Q. —Have you noticed any thing which would enable you to say that there 
was a change in the general health of Millbury during that time? A.—Yes, 
sir. 

—Will you tell what you have noticed? A.— If the Committee will 
allow me, and the counsel do not object, I will make a simple statement, which 
perhaps will make it clearer than answering questions. I came to Millbury 
sixteen years ago last May. The population of Millbury in 1870 was 4,397, I 
think: what the census was the ten years previous I have forgotten, but, if my 
memory serves me, it was 3,900 and something; but I won’t be positive as to 
that. When I came there, there were two physicians in town; and they 
thought there was no more than they could attend to well, that there was no 
place for a new man,—that they had nothing more than they cared to do. 
There are now six physicians there, five of them in active practice; and per- 


346 


haps it is safe to say that any one of the five is doing as much business as either 
of the two that were there before. I think that answers the question of the 
gentleman whether there is more sickness there now than formerly. 

“ Q. —In other words, your answer is that there is? A. — There is. 

“ Q. —What have been some of the kinds of sickness which you would think 
might be attributed, either in whole or in part, to the foulness of the river? 
A. —Well, I should say that the common sicknesses had been mostly of the 
zymotic type, — what we call the filth diseases; perhaps scarlet fever, diphthe¬ 
ria, diarrlioeal troubles, dysentery, and diseases of that character. The increase 
would be largely of that kind.” 

Then on p. 95 : — 

“ Q. —In general, what do you think the effect of the foulness of the river 
has been on the health of the people of Millbury, and the towns along the 
river, good or bad? A. — Bad. That is the idea; but the Committee will 
understand me, I know of no other reason to which to attribute the amount of 
disease more than previously.” 

Dr. Webber, a practising physician of Millbury for eleven years, 
say T s on p. 98 as follows : — 

“ Q. (By Mr. Flagg.) — As to your practice there, in what way have yon 
noticed the effect of the river upon the health of people, or what can you say 
as to that? A. —I should say its effect was bad. 

“ Q. — That is stating the matter generally, —now, have you any particular 
cases that you would speak of? A. — I would state first, if I may be allowed, 
generally; and I will then go into some particular cases. The foulness of the 
stream, and its offensive odor, are generally acknowledged. Such a stream emits 
such exhalations as are conceded by all sanitary authorities to be the producing 
causes, often, of zymotic diseases. That in a general way. I will say further, 
before alluding to specific cases, that I think it not right to consider entirely 
and exclusively the death-rate; that there are injurious influences which the 
figures of death-rates do not show.” 

He then reads an extract from Dr. John Simon’s book, which, as it 
is printed in the report, I will not trouble the Committee by re-reading. 
He then goes on to state specific cases, and alludes to some which he 
thinks may be referred to this foulness of the river. It is at the close 
of his testimony^ on p. 99 that he makes a statement in reference to 
Mr. Benjamin Flagg, whose interest in the river Mr. Lincoln, in his 
report for the Commission of Public Grounds, thought it a good thing 
to joke about, and to sneer at; and he states that Mr. PTagg died of 
diarrhoea, which, in his opinion, may be referred to the condition of 
the river. So that, although it was considered decent to ridicule Mr. 
Flagg for his efforts last year to do something to prevent this trouble 
in the river, it seems that finally he fell himself a victim to the 
scourge. 

Now, gentlemen, when we bring before you these cases, and many 
more which I have not referred to ; when you are told that men could 
not row over this stream or dip an oar into it, because the disturbance 


347 


m 

of the water would raise such an offensive odor as to cause illness 
from which the}’ did not recover for weeks ; when 3*011 find that the 
hands of the mills were unable to perform their customary work, so 
that, as Mr. C. D. Morse showed 3*011, the time lost in the last 3*ear in 
his establishment greatly exceeded any thing known in his experience, 

— the only response that we get is, “ Oh, well! 3*011 are not very un¬ 
healthy down there ; you are getting along pretty well; the tables of 
mortality show that you are not dying very fast, or as fast as people 
die in some other places ; we do not kill 3*011; we make 3*011 sick for a 
few weeks 011I3’; we shut up 3*our schools 01113* for a little while ; 3’our 
children’s diseases will not probabl3 T cause permanent trouble ; we keep 
the mill-hands awa3* for a short time onl3* from their work ; you ought 
to be thankful that you are allowed to receive this great waste of our 
substance which we send down to 3*011, and, in view of that great 
benefit, what matters it if there are a few z3*motic diseases, more or 
less, in Millbiuy? ” That is the argument. 

Before I pass to a consideration of the tables of mortality upon 
which our friends rely*, I must read a few more extracts from the 
medical evidence ; first the testimony* of Dr. Booth, also a resident 
phy*sician of Millbury, on p. 148 . He is asked, — 

“Q. — Whether, or not, it is your opinion, that if the unpurified sewage of 
Worcester, as it increases, continues to be poured into the Blackstone River, 
there will be a cause there capable of producing epidemics throughout the 
valley? A. —I have no doubt of it whatever.” 

Dr. Folsom, on p. 154 , say*s,— 

“ Q. — There is no doubt in your mind that there is a nuisance, to a greater 
or less extent, existing in consequence of the emptying of the sewage of the city 
of Worcester? A. — Oh! I should think one might state that fact beforehand 
without seeing the conditions. Ton have there the sewage of a city of over 
fifty thousand inhabitants emptying into a stream, the greatest flow of which in 
the dryest weather is seven hundred and fifty thousand gallons a day. Of 
course, I should say beforehand that that amount of sewage, coming into a 
stream of that sort, would necessarily be a nuisance. Of course, the degree 
and extent of the nuisance would be determined by the number of people living 
in the vicinity of the stream, and their nearness to the stream. 

“Q._ Have you personally observed the smells as far down as Millbury ? A. 

— One day when I was at Millbury it was quite offensive: the other days that I 
happened to be there I did not happen to notice very much smell as far dowm as 
that. 

“ q. _Was it your opinion that that was a sewage smell ? A. —I think that 

there is no question about that.” 

And on p. 155 : — 


«q. _Have you made such examination as to satisfy you that the public 

health of Millbury and the region around there may be impaired in consequence 


348 


of this? A. — My opinion would be that it is to a certain extent. I could not 
say how far without more thorough examination. I should want to go about 
there pretty minutely; and, in fact, I should want to have lived there during a 
season to be able to judge on that point. 

“ Q .—Suppose the death-rate of Millbury should be shown to have rather 
improved on the whole for a period of ten years: what should you say that 
indicated ? A. —I should not think it necessarily indicated any thing.” 

I have already said that the death-rate is not a conclusive indica¬ 
tion of the health of any community. It is, of course, one of the facts 
to be taken into account; but its weight in a particular case is to be 
determined with reference to a great many other facts. If, for in¬ 
stance, the character of the prevailing diseases w r as such that they 
were not ordinarily fatal, it is clear that the death-rate would not 
determine the condition of the public health. Again, the birth-rate 
is an important factor to be ascertained and borne in mind. But, 
while thus denying the conclusiveness of the tables of mortality, I 
have been furnished an analysis which indicates that these tables fail 
to prove that Millbury is specialty healthy, and do show the reverse. 

Mr. Goulding. We do not claim that it is specialty healthy. 

Mr. Morse. I thought the claim was that we are particularly 
healthy. That is the argument of Mr. Lincoln in his address, which 
I understand you to adopt. 

Mr. Goulding. As long as you have alluded to Mr. Lincoln, let 
me say in this connection what I stated to the Committee when I 
handed them the report, that it was the opinion of one citizen of 
Worcester, which he had formulated; and we put it in just as you 
had put in the testimony of Mr. Hoar. We did not adopt it in any 
other sense. 

Mr. Morse. Well, it seems to be so closely in line with your 
argument, that I supposed you had adopted it. 

The analysis shows that in 1880 the number of deaths in Millbury 
from filth-diseases was 35, out of a total number of deaths, from all 
causes, of 89. This was an increase of such diseases of 69 per cent 
over the average for the preceding ten years. The death-rate from 
filth-diseases in the State of Massachusetts in 1880 was 4.27 in a 
thousand ; in Worcester County it was 4.46 in a thousand ; and in 
Millbury it was 8.16 in a thousand, or nearly double the rate in the 
county or state ; and while in Worcester County the increase of 
deaths from filth-diseases in 1880 was only .55 per cent over the 
average for the last five years, in Millbury such increase was 4.23 
per cent. That is to say, the increase of deaths from filth-diseases in 
Millbury was almost eight times as great as it was in Worcester 
County, over the average, for the last ten years. The tables of mor¬ 
tality, therefore, show that there has been a very great and alarming 
increase of fatal filth-diseases in Millbury. 


349 


But, as I said before, gentlemen, I do not think that it is necessaiy 
to go to any tables to determine exactly how much injury has been 
caused by this pollution of the stream. The necessary tendency is 
to cause injury. The extent of it probably no two men would agree 
upon. If yon gentlemen were all to go to Mil-lbury to-da}', and devote 
3 'ourselves for weeks to ascertaining the facts, it is not probable that 
an}^ two of 3 ’ou would come to exactty the same conclusion as to the 
amount of disease that had been caused by this pollution of the 
stream. You might be equally honest and equally intelligent, but 
you would look at the matter from different points of view ; you 
would have different medical theories, and 3*011 would vary in your 
estimates of the weight to be given different witnesses. All that I 
seek to maintain is, that 3*011 would agree, that we must all agree, that 
all intelligent men must sa 3 r , that, if you precipitate the entire sewage 
of the cit 3 T of Worcester into that small stream, 3011 must necessarity 
deposit in the mill-ponds an enormous amount of noxious substances, 
which will emit offensive and injurious gases. The incident testified 
to b 3 ’ one of the witnesses, that he applied a lighted match to this 
gas, and that it ignited, was 011 I 3 * an ocular proof of what would be 
inferred from the other testimon 3 T , that this was probably sulphuret¬ 
ted hydrogen that escaped from the water. 

Now, gentlemen, here is the fact that the injury is done, that 
these sicknesses have been caused, and that the opinion of competent 
medical men is that the injury must increase. We then come to the 
practical question, What is to be done about it? The first answer ‘ 
that is made is, that we can remedy the trouble by removing the 
dams. This remedy, however, is neither a proper nor a practicable 
one. 

The city of Worcester has no right to require the people below her 
to remove the dams which have existed for a long period anterior to 
the construction of her sewerage system. The rights in these mill- 
privileges are as much the property of the people along the Black- 

stone as the land which the citizen of Worcester owns is his prop- 

♦ 

ertv. Money has been invested in them ; they sustain the industries 
of a large population, and to remove them is to cause irreparable 
damage. Worcester, as we contend, has no right to require us to 
adopt a remedy of that sort. The city might as well require our 
people to abandon their homes, and places of work and business. 
Esek Saunders, I think the oldest witness that was called here on 
either side of this case,—one of the venerable men whom the 
sewao-e of Worcester has preserved in life till this period, — on p. 87 
gives the following testimony : — 

« Q' (py Mr. Flagg.) — What would be the effect upon the industries of 
Millbury, Grafton, Sutton, Northbridge, Uxbridge, and Blackstone, with their 


350 


twenty-five thousand inhabitants and thirty-two hundred operatives, of taking 
down the dams? A. — Well, it would depopulate that country. That is the 
business that they have been brought up to, the business that they are calcu¬ 
lated to carry on: I do not see any other business that they couid adapt them¬ 
selves to. 

“ Q. — Were those dams in existence long before the city of Worcester 
turned its sewage into the Blackstone River ? A. —Oh, yes!” 

But, even if the clams should be removed, it would not be a perma¬ 
nent remedy. That was the opinion of Mr. Worthen, and you will 
easily see the reason. In the first place, gentlemen, we cannot possi¬ 
bly^ control the State of Rhode Island. This river runs through 
Rhode Island to the sea. There are dams on the Blackstone in that 
State ; and, so long as a single dam remains, the river will tend to fill 
up. But if all the dams in Rhode Island were also removed, although 
some temporary relief might be obtained, it would be merely post¬ 
poning the evil day. Of course, the more obstructions you remove, 
and the steadier flow you give to a stream, the more chance thefe is 
of its freeing itself from impurities; but the time will come when a 
winding stream, which in dry weather has only a slight current, and 
must always have its shallow pools and its natural obstructions, 
and into which polluted matter is thrown, of which so large a part is 
solid, must necessarily become foul. You cannot by' any temporary 
expedient, like removing the dams, keep clear and pure the water of 
a stream into which such an immense mass of filth is thrown. It is 
not possible. 

I claim, then, that the suggestion that the towns below Worcester 
can cure their troubles by r removing the dams is impracticable. No 
Legislature would compel it. Yet it could not be accomplished with¬ 
out legislation, as it would be impossible to obtain the consent of the 
various parties interested. Nor would the plan turn out in the end 
to give an adequate return for its great cost. 

But the city' further says that it is under no obligation in this mat¬ 
ter ; that it has suggested a remedy which we can take into our own 
hands ; but that, if we do not see fit to adopt it, it has nothing further 
to say T . 

I do not intend, gentlemen, to enter upon a lengthy discussion of the 
law on this matter. I referred to the legal authorities, in opening, 
for the purpose of indicating to the Committee, and also to the city, 
the views which the petitioners took on the point of the legal liabili¬ 
ties of Worcester. We wanted it understood, that, while we consider 
that we have a remedy at law, yet we do not think that this is a case 
where we should undertake to exercise it without first attempting the 
more peaceful and comprehensive method of trying to obtain a revis¬ 
ion of the statute under which the city took Mill Brook as a sewer. 


351 


We felt that it was not the part of good neighbors, in the first instance, 
to sue the city of Worcester. We felt, in regard to the city of 
Worcester, as you would if a neighbor of yours with whom }’ou had 
always lived on good terms should suddenly establish a bone-factory, 
or rendering establishment, or some other nuisance which annoyed 
you, and was dangerous to your health and that of your family. You 
would not bring a suit immediately. You would state to him the 
injury he was doing, and remonstrate against its continuance, and 
endeavor by every reasonable method to satisfy him of the propriety 
of your request that he should so manage his establishment as to 
remove your cause of complaint. While, therefore, nry clients have 
refrained from an}’ hostile action, I felt it proper to state the legal 
aspect of the case as 1 understood it; and in that connection I must 
read to the Committee an extract from the opinion of the Supreme 
Court in a case which I did not read from in the opening, but which 
I added to the citations in the printed report. 

This case, which, in its essential features, is very similar to the 
present, is that of Haskell v. New Bedford, in 108 Mass. 208. The 
precise point to which I cite it is this : that the court will not construe 
a statute as authorizing anybody to commit a nuisance, whether it be 
a city or a town or an individual. My proposition is, that the cit} T 
of Worcester is not authorized to commit a nuisance. The Act of 1867 
does not authorize it to commit a nuisance; and, if it does commit a 
nuisance, it is liable to damages for the consequences. It may be 
enjoined in equit} T , or it ma}’ be indicted. 

Now, in this case of Haskell v. New Bedford, it appeared that the 
plaintiff, Haskell, was the owner of a wharf in New Bedford. He 
complained that the city had “ constructed a sewer outside of the 
dock, but opening into and upon the same, into which sewer many 
tenements and houses have entered their drains; that the number of 
the same has largely increased ; and that now very large quantities 
of foul and disgusting substances are continually brought down and 
conducted by the city, by means of the sewer, into the dock, and 
have already greatly and illegally obstructed the same, and now 
cause a great and pestilential stench at the dock, and disturb and 
destroy the plaintiff’s privilege of maintaining the dock and wharf; 
and that the city has done and is continuing to do this without any 
color or process of law, and to the great injury and common nuisance 
of all citizens, as well as to the private injury and nuisance of the 

plaintiff.” 

The city undertook to justify its acts on the ground that it was 
authorized by law to construct the sewer, and it cited various statutes 
to that effect. And, at the trial, the presiding judge was so impressed 
by the argument in behalf of the city, that he ruled that the plaintiff 


352 



could not recover; that the city had done all these things by virtue 
of various acts of the Legislature, and that therefore it could not be 
held. But, on the hearing before the full court, the chief justice, 
Gra} r , announcing the opinion of the court, says in reference to 
this, — 

“ The right conferred upon the city of New Bedford to lay out common 
sewers ‘ through any streets or private lands ’ does not include the right to 
create a nuisance, public or private, upon the property of the Commonwealth, 
or of an individual, within tide-water.” 

He then goes on to discuss the various grounds upon which the 
plaintiff is entitled to remedy as against that nuisance, and the vari¬ 
ous remedies he ma}’ have. 

This case, as the Committee will see, is in harmon}’ with the case 
upon which I commented in opening, Badger v. Boston, in which it 
was held that if a city so constructed and managed a public urinal 
as that it became a nuisance, it was liable in damages, although 
it was authorized by statute to erect it. There is no question, 
gentlemen, about that proposition of law ; and if the city of Worces¬ 
ter should succeed in defeating our application for legislation, they 
must meet claims based upon those decisions of the court. 

But, if you believe that the city of Worcester has created and now 
maintains this nuisance in the honest belief that it was authorized 
under the Act of 1867 to do so, }’ou will, it seems to me, see an occa¬ 
sion for a statute that shall amend the original Act rather than to 
compel us to take the slow, uncertain, vexatious, and expensive pro¬ 
cesses to which we shall otherwise be compelled to resort. Suppose, 
gentlemen, that, when this Act of 1867 was passed, } r ou had been 
members of the Legislature, and had been appealed to to grant the city 
of Worcester authority to turn its sewage into Mill Brook; suppose 
you had then had the knowledge which the experience of the last 
fifteen years has given, — would you not say to the city of Worcester 
that, while it might turn its sewage into Mill Brook, it should not do 
it until after it had been properly purified ? Is there airy doubt that 
you would have put that into the Act? Suppose a town now applies 
to the Legislature (as I believe that one or two towns have applied 
this year) for permission to turn its sewage into a running stream — 
I think ordinarily that permission is refused ; but, supposing it is 
granted, have 3 'ou any doubt that you would affix to it a condition 
that the sewage should be purified before it is discharged into the 
stream? Have you any doubt that, in legislating hereafter, yououo-ht 
to insert that provision, and would insert it? Now I ask, if 3 ’ou 
would insist upon that principle in reference to any new application, 
why should you not now insert that qualification in the Act of 1867? 
Does it make any difference that for fifteen years we have suffered 


353 


from the consequences of its not being there ? Is that a reason why 
nothing should now be done ? One would say it is the strongest rea¬ 
son why something should be done, and that speedily. 

I come, then, finally, to consider what ought to be done in this case. 
It is clear that the nuisance exists in a greater or less degree, and I 
do not care which for the purposes of the argument; that it is caused 
by the city 1 ' of Worcester, which is undertaking to act under a statute 
that cannot properly be construed as authorizing it to create a nui¬ 
sance. The question then is, What shall be done ? I have already 
pointed out that the answer that the city of Worcester makes, that 
we are to apply the remedy by removing the dams, is no answer at 
all. There is no remedy that we can apply that would be effective, 
and there is no remedy that you would compel us to apply. But are 
we therefore helpless? Can nothing be done? Worcester says nothing 
can be done ; that experiments for the purification of sewage have 
been made in other places, but that nothing satisfactory has been 
accomplished ; that nothing has been proved, and that science and 
engineering skill have failed to prevent or alleviate the devastating 
effects of sewage turned into a running stream. Now, there never 
was a more extraordinary misstatement of the fact. Science has 
found practical methods which have been applied with success. Not 
only do the eminent experts whom we have called before you testify 
to this, but the accomplished engineer employed b} r the city of 
Worcester to criticise the plans of others, but not to suggest a practi¬ 
cal remedy, makes no dissent to the statements of Dr. Folsom and 
Col. Waring as to the successful results of various systems for puri¬ 
fying sewage. 

In considering the weight to be given to Mr. Worthen’s opinion, it 
should be remembered that, though he is undoubtedly an able en¬ 
gineer, he has not made sanitary engineering a special pursuit, that 
he has made no personal examination of the Blackstone Valley, and 
that he was not asked to recommend a plan for remedying the 
trouble. 

The State Board of Health suggested last summer that the city of 
Worcester should emploj r a scientific man to advise as to what could 
be done. It did not then employ any one ; but last December or 
January, after the examination by the Board of Health, and when the 
city found that this question was coming up before the Legislature, 
upon the report of the board, and that there was to be an attempt 
for some measure of relief, it then employed Mr. Worthen, not to find 
a remedy, but to argue what could not be done. His mission seems 
to be to discourage all effort to overcome the present and threatened 
difficulties. You would conclude, that though other places have found 
it necessary to purify sewage, and have succeeded in doing so, yet 


354 


that for some reason such action is neither necessary nor practicable 
here. But, aside from such qualifications as you may consider- are 
made by Mr. Worthen’s statements, the evidence is plenary that 
various systems of purification under conditions similar to those of 
Worcester have worked successfully. Experiments must necessarily 
continue to be tried hereafter, as all plans are capable of improve¬ 
ment ; but the results thus far obtained are very gratifying. Col. 
Waring says, — 

“ The entire sewage of Dantzic, on the Baltic Sea, where the climate is quite 
as severe as anywhere in New England, has the entire effluent of its very com¬ 
plete system of sewerage well purified, winter and summer, by surface irriga¬ 
tion. About one-eighth of the sewage of Paris, made very foul by the removal 
of street-dirt in a putrid condition by the sewers, and by the very considerable 
contamination coming from public urinals and other sources, is perfectly puri¬ 
fied by agricultural processes on the plain of Gennevilliers. A large portion of 
Berlin now sends all of its sewage to the irrigation-fields at Osdorf, wdiere it is 
completely purified. Croydon, in England, which is a larger city than Worces¬ 
ter, has most successful purification-works close to its border. The great health- 
resort, Malvern, purifies its sewage by intermittent filtration. So does Kendal 
in the north. Leamington and Rugby use broad irrigation. Over fifty other 
towns in England purify their sewage in a similar manner. The places named 
I have visited personally, and I have made a careful examination of their puri¬ 
fication-works. I might cite other towns where satisfactory purification is 
effected by chemical processes; but these seem to me so unsuited to the condi¬ 
tions we are considering, that the discussion of chemical purification is hardly 
worth while. Suitable works on either of the plans submitted can with entire 
safety be adopted for Worcester. 


“That there is any peculiarity in the climate or in the soil of Worcester 
which indicates a special difficulty in the adoption of the processes of purifica¬ 
tion by agricultural treatment is clearly disproved, by the long and satisfactory 
experience in this very manner in connection with the insane hospital located 
there.” 

I will ask my associate, Mr. Flagg, to read some extracts which he 
has prepared from a recent French work upon this subject which I 
have not had the opportunity to examine. 

Mr. Goulding. Are those extracts to come in without our having 
had an opportunity to read them or refer to them in the closing argu¬ 
ment ? 

Mr. Morse. If my friend has any objection to our reading them 
on the ground that he has not had an opportunity to examine them 
or comment upon them, I have no desire to press them. I do not 
suppose there are any very strict rules in hearing matters of this 
sort; but, if he insists upon the point, I will not ask the Committee 
to hear these extracts. 

Mr. Goulding. I only say I have had no opportunity to answer 
them because I knew nothing about them. 



355 


Mr. Morse. That is perfectly true. Still, they are only addi¬ 
tional authority in support of our proposition. 

Mr. Goulding. You may put them in, if you deem it important 
for your case. I will not object. 

Mr. Flagg. The extracts are from a work entitled, u Les Travaux 
d’Assainissement de Danzig, Berlin, Breslau. Par M. A. Durand- 
Claye. Extrait de la Revue d’Hygiene. Janvier et Fevrier, 1881.” 

On p. 3 the author speaks of the occasion of writing his article. 
As the work has not 3 *et appeared in English, I shall translate liter¬ 
ally as I read. He says, — 

“ The city of Odessa, Russia, having consulted me as to its sanitary matters, 
and especially as to questions relating to the location of its sewers, and the purifi¬ 
cation of its sewage-water, I have taken the opportunity, upon my return from 
Russia, to visit certain German cities, where I have examined the recent and 
extensive works undertaken by those municipalities. 

“ At the request of 1 M. le directeur des travaux ’ of Paris, and of the ‘ com¬ 
mission of inspectors-general of bridges and streets,’ — charged with the super¬ 
vision of the public works of the city of Paris, —I have undertaken to sum up 
the result of the observations which I have been able to make. 

“Three cities came principally under my observation,—Dantzic, Berlin, 
Breslau. Each of these had a special interest. 

“Dantzic is subject to a climate quite wintry, which would seem to present 
peculiar difficulties in a sanitary point of view, as well within as without. 

“ Berlin is one of the largest cities of Europe. Its population is more than 
a million. Its works should be on a scale such as are necessary for such great 
capitals as Paris, London, and Vienna. 

“ Breslau has long been notoriously bad, in a sanitary point of view. It has 
now completed the last of its works. It ought to profit from the experience of 
the two other cities of Prussia cited.” 

Referring, first, to Dantzic, he describes its situation on p. 5, and 
says, — 

“ The climate of Dantzic, in spite of its nearness to the sea” [i.e., the Bal¬ 
tic], “ is cold.” 

A table of monthly averages of temperature follows, which, the 
notation being changed from Centigrade to Fahrenheit, shows the 
climate to be quite equal to that of New England. On p. 8 he says, — 

“ At the same time that it has adopted, without hesitation, what is an excel¬ 
lent solution of the question of water-supply, it has not hesitated, even taking 
into consideration the great quantity of water to be disposed of, and although 
but a short distance from the Baltic, to reject the evil and barbarous system 
of discharging its filth into the sea. Thanks to the studies of engineers ” [whom 
he quotes], “ the city of Dantzic has adopted the system of sewer-discharge of 
filth, and purification of its sewage by the soil and by vegetation.” 

After describing the works, upon p. 16, he says, — 

“In a sanitary view, the results are complete. The sewage-water is wholly 
filtered by the earth, purified, and taken up by vegetable growth. The subter- 


356 


ranean water is limpid, without the least odor, sometimes colored by natural 
constituents of the soil.” , 

Upon p. 19, under the head of “ Operation in Winter,” he say T s, 

“ The successful treatment continues without interruption all winter, in spite 
of the severity of the season.” 

On p. 20, under the head of “ Berlin,” he say r s, — 

“ The sanitary works of the city of Berlin are the same in principle as those 
of Dantzic, and, for that matter, of a great number of English cities; viz., — 

“ 1st, Suppression of cesspools ; 2d, Network of sewers, with plenty of 
water, and receiving street and house sewage; 3d, Purification of sewage-water 
by irrigation.” 

On p. 22 : — 

“The winter is severe, and like that of Dantzic.” 

He describes the works of Berlin, and, on p. 36, say T s, as to the 
results of purification, — 

“The results obtained, in a sanitary point of view, are remarkable.” 

On p. 37 : — 

“ I have drunk of the effluent drainage: it is as clear, as pure, and as fresh 
as that obtained at Gennevilliers. It is impossible to recognize in the least 
any influence caused by previous sewage contamination.” 

On p. 39, under the head of “ Breslau: ” — 

“This city has imitated Berlin in its interior works, its sewers, etc. For 
sanitary effects outside, that is to say, in its plan for purification of its sewage, 
it has imitated the works of Dantzic.” 

On p. 47 he states his u conclusions : ” — 

“ I may sum up the results of my investigations in few words. In Germany 
it is admitted to-day, by all, without dispute, that municipal health depends 
upon three principles: — 

“1st, Total drainage of filth by sewers. 2d, Abundant water in dwellings, 
and frequent flushing of sewers. 3d, Purification of sewage by the earth and 
vegetable growth. 

“ When I have conversed with our German colleagues upon questions affect¬ 
ing Paris, and especially as to any hesitation as to suppressing cesspools or puri¬ 
fication of sewage, I have universally been met with expressions of profound 
astonishment. These points are considered settled abroad. Sixty-eight English 
cities purify their sewage by the soil. For twelve years the city of Paris has 
had in practice a like system at Gennevilliers.” 

Mr. Morse. This authority 7 , gentlemen, confirms the statement of 
Col. Waring. You have also the opinions of Dr. Walcott and Dr. 
Folsom to the same effect. 

Now, all that it is necessary for the petitioners in this case to do 
is to show that some remedy can be applied. We are not bound to 



357 


Piove that the remedy would prevent all trouble. We are not bound 
to satisfy the Committee that the first experiment could be made with¬ 
out possibility of mistake, nor are we bound to prescribe the method, 
nor is this Committee called upon to prescribe the method, that 
shall be adopted. If we show that an evil exists, for which Worcester 
is responsible, then we are entitled to relief, if relief can be had. I 
agree that if no system can be adopted that will be of any benefit, 
the city can do nothing; and the only result must be what I have 
alread}’ indicated, — the depopulation of the region : but if relief can 
be given by any plan, it is immaterial, so far as this hearing is con¬ 
cerned, precisely what form of relief shall be adopted. The experts 
that the State Board of Health selected had peculiar qualifications 
for their work. In addition to Dr. Folsom and Dr. Walcott, the 
commission comprised Mr. Davis, whom many of this Committee 
know to have been one of the most eminent and valuable engineers 
ever in the employ of the city 7 of Boston, — the one under whom the 
great system of sewerage now in process of construction was planned. 
He has considered this matter carefully as an engineer, with a view 
of determining the cost. You have his judgment in addition to that 
of Drs. Folsom and AYalcott. The commission reports that, with an 
expenditure of four hundred and eight thousand dollars, it is possible 
for Worcester to establish a system of purification which will remove, 
for all time to come, all cause of complaint on this river. Col. 
Waring suggests a plan that would be less expensive, which would 
cost about half that amount. Those are the only plans which have 
been carefully examined and figured upon. It is rather remarkable 
— I call it to your attention in passing — that an able city engineer 
like Mr. Allen, who was present here last winter, and heard all the 
discussions on this subject, and whose attention must have been 
called to this matter moie or less, has not been asked to consider, 
and has not, in fact, considered the question of remedy, and has made 
no figures and submitted no plan. The plan recommended by the 
commission appointed by the State Board of Health, which is more 
expensive than that advised by Col. Waring, does not, nevertheless, 
involve a cost disproportionate to the outlay upon the water and 
sewerage systems of Worcester, or beyond the reasonable ability of 
the city to pay. This plan involves, as I stated in the opening, and 
appears more fully in the report, the construction of new lateral 
sewers to conduct the sewage of the city, leaving Mill Brook to 
carry its natural flow only, the pumping of the sewage upon lands 
specially prepared to act as filters, different sections being used alter¬ 
nately, and the discharge of the water into the Blackstone onl} r after 
it is thus freed from noxious substances. 

I have been furnished a statement which shows the extent of the 


358 


burden that would be imposed upon the city of Worcester, assuming 
that it should adopt the plan recommended by the State Board of 
Health, and that the cost of the plan would be $408,000 as estimated 

If you assume that that amount is borrowed at three and a half 

per cent, the interest will be. 

Add expenses for pumping, in accordance with the estimate of the 

State Board of Health. 

Add expenses for superintending and extra outlay for the first five 
years over and above the income. 

Then the total interest account and running expenses per year will be, 

This will amount to a tax of thirty-two cents per head for the first 
3 r ear, estimating the population at 63,000. Add for the sinking-fund 
twenty cents per head, and 3 T ou will have a charge of fifty-two cents 
per 3 7 ear for the first 3 ~ear. These assessments will be reduced each 
3 T ear, so that at the end of twenty 3 ’ears the cit 3 7 will have mone 3 T 
enough to pa 3 7 the entire sinking-fund, and a handsome balance in 
the treasury. Again, assuming that the population of Worcester 
increases uniformty at the rate of twenty per cent in five years, — 
and that is in accordance with its past increase, —the rate of increase 
each 3 T ear is 3.71 per cent. At this rate, the population will double 
in nineteen 3 ’ears. An annual appropriation of $10,000, invested at 
four per cent, would yield in twenty-five years over $400,000 (exactty 
$416,459.08) ; that is to sa 3 T , if $10,000 were to be invested at four 
per cent each 3 T ear for twenty-five years, at the end of that time it 
would pay this entire expense. An appropriation of $10,000 the 
first year, $10,400 the second, with an annual increase of four per 
cent upon the appropriation of the preceding year, to correspond 
with the increase of population, with the accumulated interest at four 
per cent per annum, would in twenty years amount to a little more 
than $400,000, — $400,243, counting nineteen annual payments with 
interest at the end of the twentieth year. In other words, b 3 r making 
an appropriation of $10,000 the first year, and $10,400 the second 
year, and so on, increasing annually 7 four per cent upon the appropria¬ 
tions of the preceding year in order to correspond with the increase 
in population, you will have at the end of twent 3 T years a sum suffi¬ 
cient to pay* the amount recommended by the State Board of Health. 

My object in introducing these figures is to satisfy the Committee 
that if the city' of Worcester were to adopt the most expensive plan, 
— and nobody has asked that it be made obligatoiy upon the cit 3 7 
of Worcester to take that plan, — it can with a very' small annual 
appropriation meet this entire expenditure in twenty, or, at the far¬ 
thest, twenty-five, years. Of course, their own financiers are better 
able than we are to suggest the ways in which they' can deal with the 


$14,280 

3.500 

2.500 
$20,280 




359 


question of raising the money ; but these figures show that, for a great 
and growing city like Worcester, the expense is a comparatively 
small sum. It is nothing at all in comparison with the amount of 
injury that is being caused by the present condition of things. 

But their final objection is, that granting all that can be said of the 
practicability of a sy 7 stem of purification, and of the reasonableness of 
the cost, y r et the city of Worcester should not be compelled to adopt 
it, and that the utmost that should be passed is a bill permitting the 
cit 3 7 to adopt those measures. Well, gentlemen, it is hardly worth 
while seriously 7 1° argue that proposition. What chance is there of 
the city 7 of Worcester doing this voluntarily ? We know how difficult 
it is in ordinary cities to get an appropriation for many matters w 7 hich 
look merely to the health and pleasure of their own citizens. Ap¬ 
propriations for sewerage, and for public parks, which are necessar 3 r 
or desirable for public health and the general benefit, are ordinary 
very 7 difficult to obtain. As a rule, towns oppose the adoption of a 
system of sewerage because of its expense. The cit 3 T of Boston even, 
which has to-day 7 a ver 3 T large and admirable S 3 7 stem under way 7 for 
a part of the city, has come to it with great difficulty and after much 
opposition. And, as you are aware, the system of sewerage that is 
now talked of with reference to the Mystic Valley 7 is opposed by 7 most 
of the towns interested on account of its expense. 

Now, I undertake to say r that, when it is so difficult to obtain 
appropriations for the construction of a system for the protection of 
the health of the inhabitants of the place which is to have the imme¬ 
diate benefit, it is impossible to suppose that the city 7 of Worcester 
will voluntary assume an expense for the benefit of its neighbors, 
particularly^ when it believes that neither legally 7 nor morally 7 it is 
bound to do it. It will not be done, gentlemen. If you report a 
permissive bill, it is a purely 7 harmless statute. It goes on the stat¬ 
ute-book, nobody objects to it; and there it will lie, and be of no 
sort of value whatever. Authorize the city 7 of Worcester to remedy 7 
this evil! Why, gentlemen, they have had ample opportunity all 
these years to do it, if they wanted to do something. They do not 
come here asking you for any act. They 7 will accept it as a mild 
dispensation, and no doubt as a very happy relief. But the idea that 
the city of Worcester, whose committee met in brother Goulding’s 
office, and adopted the grim resolution which I have read, after they 
thought that their cause had been given away here, — the idea of 
their voluntarily 7 doing any thing, under a permissive bill, for the/ 
relief of their neighbors below them, is preposterous. They do not 
intend it, and they say they do not intend it. They are perfectly 
frank about it. Under those circumstances, what use is there in 
reporting a permissive bill? 


360 


But what we are entitled to, and what the justice of the State 
ought to give us, is an obligatory bill, requiring the city of Worcester 
to do something. We are not particular as to the limitation of time 
within which the} 7 shall adopt some plan. The period of four months 
was put into the bill presented by us, without any special considera¬ 
tion as to its sufficiency. I said the other da} 7 , and I repeat it now, 
that we are perfectly willing to extend that time to a year, so that 
another Legislature will sit before the city of Worcester is committed 
to any serious expense. The city will thus have ample time to con¬ 
sult proper authorities, and determine upon the best course to pursue. 
We do not desire a controversy with our neighbors. We have no 
desire to appeal to the court hastily. We simply ask this Legislature 
to so amend or construe the Act of 1867 as to prevent a continuance 
of this nuisance, and to establish some reasonable limit of time with¬ 
in which it shall be done. But, when you have fixed that time, we 
ask you to make the act efficient, and provide that within that time 
the city shall do something. It may consult any body it pleases ; it 
may adopt any system ; it may incur only such expense as shall be 
actually necessary, and the less expense that will enable them to 
carry out a proper plan will be the most satisfactory to us. We 
only ask that the city shall be required to do what a court of equity 
hereafter shall say is equitable, — what it can do reasonably to pre¬ 
vent and redress this wrong. The city of Worcester is a very power¬ 
ful corporation. We admit it. We know perfectly well, that if 
that city oppose us with all its strength in this Legislature, through 
their senator and representatives, and through all the instrumentali¬ 
ties that it can bring: to bear, trv to defeat this measure, it will be very 
difficult to carry it through, even with the powerful help of a favor¬ 
able report from this Committee. We understand that perfectly well. 
In comparison with Worcester, the towns which are injured are 
small, and their industries unimportant. Their people are of modest 
means. You may blot them all out of existence, and you will do 
nothing like the injury to the State, or its material interests, or to its 
greatness, that would be caused by destroying or even seriously 
injuring the city of Worcester. If it is the determination of the city 
of Worcester that nothing shall be done, that resistance shall be 
made to every application that these people make for relief from the 
great wrong which it is doing them, we appreciate the power of their 
opposition. And yet, gentlemen, remembering that the policy and 
proud tradition of this State have been justice to all, whether high or 
low, rich or poor, strong or weak, and considering that we have a 
cause that appeals to the sense of equity and justice, we believe, that 
if you shall grant this petition, and set forth the plain facts in your 
report, not only will the Legislature indorse your action, but the 



361 


people of Worcester themselves, after they shall have forgotten the 
heat and irritation of this controversy, will be ready to admit frankly 
the justice of our claim, and the reasonableness of the obligation 
imposed upon them. 


The following is the bill presented by Mr. Morse: — 

An Act for the Preservation of the Public Health in the 
Towns bordering upon the Blackstone River, and of the 
Purity of the Waters of said River. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court 
assembled , and by the authority of the same, as follows: 

Section 1. The cit} 7 of Worcester is hereby directed, within four 
months after the passage of this act, to provide for purifying from all 
offensive, contaminating, noxious, and polluting properties the waters 
or substances that may thereafter be discharged from its sewers into 
Blackstone River, so that said waters and substances shall not of 
themselves, or in connection with other matter, create a nuisance or 
endanger the public health; and said city thereafter shall cease to 
empty from its sewers into Blackstone River any waters or substances 
containing said properties until the same shall have been first so 
purified. 

Sect. 2. Said city is hereby authorized to take and hold such 
lands, on or near Blackstone River, and to construct such works, as 
it may deem necessary, to enable said city to treat its sewage and 
free the same from all offensive, contaminating, noxious, and pollut¬ 
ing properties and substances. Said city shall make compensation 
to the owners for such lands as it shall take under this act; and if 
said city and said owners do not agree, any person aggrieved shall 
be entitled to have his damages ascertained in the manner provided 
b} r law for the recovery of damages in the taking of lands for high- 
wa3 r s. 

Sect. 3. The city of Worcester is hereby authorized to raise and 
appropriate, in such manner as its city government shall determine, 
such sums of money as shall be required by said city to carry out the 
provisions of this act. 

Sect. 4. The supreme judicial court, or any justice thereof, in 
term time or vacation, sitting in equity for either of the counties of 
Suffolk or Worcester, shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce the 
provisions of this act, by injunction or b}' any other appropriate equi¬ 
table remedy, on complaint of the selectmen of any town in the 
county of Worcester situate on the Blackstone River. 



INDEX. 


Argument for Petitioners, — p age 

Opening.5-23 

Closing. 328-361 

.361 

^ a P. 364 

Witnesses called by Committee. 

Folsom, Dr. Charles F.153-165 

Walcott, Dr. Henry P..174-177 

Petitioners’ Witnesses. 

Bancroft, H. L.136-140 

Bates, Dr. J. N.281 

Booth, Dr. Robert.145-153 

Chase, G. F.29-37 

Durand-Claye (quoted).355 

Durand, Nehemiah..71-74 

Ewell, Rev. J. L.74-77 

Fisher, George W.92-94 

Gegenheimer, John.123-128 

Greenwood, N. H.24-29 

Heap, Thomas.120-123 

Hull, S. E..44-48 

Harrington, William H. 104,105, 108-111 

Hoar, Hon. George F. (quoted). 19 

Johnston, B. J.180 

Lincoln, Dr. William H.94-98 

Morse, C. D.140-144 

Pratt, Herbert A..129-133 

Saunders, Esek . 77-88 

Simon, Dr. John (quotation).98 

Simpson, Peter.111-120 

Smith, Joel.88-92 

Smith, Rev. P. Y..59-65 

Thomson, Elijah.181 

Yerry, George F. (quoted). 10 

Waring, George E., jun.165-174 

Webber, Dr. G. C.98-104 

Wheelock, Thomas.49-59 

Whitin, Charles E.177-180 

Whitworth, Charles.133-136 

Whitney, L. L.. • • 37-44 

Wilmot, Dr. Thomas . 65-71 









































Argument, Closing 


For City of Worcester. 


Page 

281-327 


Witnesses for Worcester. 

Adams, Charles F. 

Allen, Charles A. 

Barnard, George A. 

Chamberlin, Robert H. 

Coes, Loring. 

Dyson, Joseph M.. 

Harrington, Stephen. 

Lovell, A. B.. 

McClellan, John ......... 

Martin, Dr. Oramel. 

Perry, Joseph S. 

Pratt, Charles D. 

Rice, Dr. J. M. 

Stoddard, E. B., Mayor. 

Taylor, Lucien A.. 

Walker, Benjamin. 

Worthen, William E. 


. 185-199 
265-270, 273, 274 
. . 279, 280 

. 274, 275 
. 276, 277 
. 277, 278 
. 213-225 
229-234, 278, 279 
. . 209-213 

. 199-204 
. . 225-228 

. 207-209 
. 204-207 
. 234-253 
. . 271-273 

. 275, 276 
. 253-265 


















Worcester Q u i rkm o n cl 

£ Pop 58,295 V&.I.$ 53.488.687 S^ke 



S hrewsburij 

Pop. 1.5oo 





Wesf’borough 

Pop. 5.21^? 




Centre 

Auburn 

Pop. 1.317 V*l *590.426 / 

/ 


Burling^Mills D&m <z> v 


I 

I 

i 


6 ra fton 

Pop. 4.030.Vi.l4l.953.459 

dr&ffon Centre 


\ 

\ 

i 

i 

\ 

i 

i 

i 

\ 


'i 


./ MAP OF 

/ The Blackstone River 

7 and Vicinity within the 

State of M&ss. 

2—- ^ ] '<3 2 Zf/i j '/ 3 4 


\ 


Sci.| e of M i I es . R| 

4 


\ TheHfl.otypoPrm'.ins Co ?11 a Boston. 

\ 


/ 


/ 


/ Millburq lW/g. 

Pop. 4.741 Vil.s 2,68o.^UC/ 


^nson;»ll^d^Ue hervi 


' ~\ 


Dmti 






w°- 


f* -v " ^ r v 1 i 12 

^J_D>jru -E^ 6. 

\ X<Farnumsv ills' 

\ Da.-'** 

'West Uotnn 


Upton 

p op.2.o23 Va.l485S.S36 


V_ 

/ 

/ 


\ 

\ 


5uH» n Centre 


M i I fo rd 


\ 


Centre 


.West Sutton 

\ • 

\ 

\ 

\ 


5 utton 

Pop.3.lo5V&l.# 1.469.105 


\Northbridge \| 

\ Pop.4-.o53.VM.#2.282.54o\\"p> 


V 


\ 


Oxford 


V 

\ 


\Nnchaug 

\u - - " 


'p.o.Webster 

I • 

I 

1 


P.0 

» 


Dougl a s 

Pop Z,!M. Vfc-ir 922.375 


Connecticut 



Ea.st Dougtas 


• D*m. 

North Uxbridge 


Uxbridge 

Pop. 3.111 V6.I.# 1.872.254- 


Blackstone 

Pop.2,905. Vtl*2,143.923. 
1 Millville 


Bi^ckstone 


Rhode Island. 
























































.o.q 














s 

























































o V 



o ). 0 v\ 

’ a 0 V *••’• A °* * 

.<r .*•«- > v % 

<° v*. -A ► . *2. 5» _ ♦ .a 
0 <^n <£ * 

vf'V •{ U 



O > 





a v ' r£» • 1$ y 4 v \r -> ' 

V> <. *'TTs* .6* o -A <s *'.♦•* 

A* o N e ., <£ p. v l < « .<£► . o N c * <£ r 

A • & <pSSNv % *#» At A • <» *£ A 

A v. . g *jedf/fe,+ ^ A * 

* 'r, A K ^ o, 

«** 0 




o y 


■* ^0* 


^ ^ ' ’ A^ °°^. ® N 0 ° A 0 ° . ^ * # ' 1 ‘ V 

,# °' ^ V ^ ^ ^ V ^vL/Aa 




c a& * 

*. W x ; 
* ^ • 


* 4? &, *> 

» 4- v <^. 



1 0. V ’ A . : 
■* 4? %. ■ 

‘•'T'.'i* ,0 V ’O '•.-.* A <V 

o* *o A „■>■«. <s> 

9 < N « 

- *0 ^ : 

4 



° A^ * 



«■<* «» 




o }0 *7\ 

V V * -z///iu&r . k 

0 -. - , n o •%. *^T' A 

' - C\ «0~ * y * 0 * V *• - s 



« 1 ' ® * o 


vf 


4 c> 

•0.* -r<> •" 

V »/* 

(TV o. 



o. - * 0 : 0 ° .a 


<•> 'iK + 

^ a • 

vf> <? * 


* ■» A V ">V » 

4 ^ ^ 


O 9 * 


A 






vP V ® 


® aV^> 

♦ ^ ^ 



>P ^ 




o 'o'. A A <k - ... 

O A ^ C 0 " 0 ♦ <^K 

O aw’ • _c^tv • 

,, b^ A 0 ^ 


^ s „ 0 0 «0 



X? v<v 


^ 4.^ 

^ O « o AJ $> e , n oA 

' ^ / -Wr. ^ ^ ♦ 

' * aV a . 4 4/ °q> o 

G v 'o.A A <■. .G V o 'o..- - 

1 * 8 * A % , o - 0 „ %j» n? ,'■••. 'Iq 

c ° or % G° ,W^,% -o 



° ^ A^ * 

*. ; 

,° A °o 

^ <XA ^ • 






o y 


^ 0v b. 


0 N 0 


S ° ° , . C> 


<• A 

^ A • 

sP V * 


>, > vP •» 

r o o» 

^ 4> ®' y A' * 

or , y *o. "> 

*»■ » . ^ . • .Ak /V » 

° % ^ * 

A-V 

C, yf> * 

C,** iT> ° 

* 4? o 

, % <l. V ri» ® ^ ^9 ’ + 

\ r '^‘ S% A 0 ^ 'o.k- A 

<G o 0 w 0 <* • 1 ' ® -» C5 \G o " C ^ <$> 

^ % G »w%v’ ° ,r ^ 

° > . “vtm • ^ o • *yin3W^ * o v 



® A^^ 

4 A V ”>*. 0 


o • » 


A 






* ■r, 

^ 0 < 


o A v% - Ok 

s ?v ^■ > a <^<// / /l\i2e N ,4»* ^ 

0 " 0 ° ^° *<p> " 8 ' 1 ° A^ 

<0 O ’ * °A v v % % s V ' 

- ^ •<- >veiiv. A A .>§#a<- 0 



° s s 

^ 4? & .- 

. . -»- s A, *'o. 4* 

A v o 0 " (5 * o x . l ' a 4 ^o A 

*>. .A .‘l4§tok -n#.. « c °„ ^ 












0’ 



• 4 0 ° 

% *0.0' ,0' 

•- 


^ 0 x 





10 v* 


-4°Xv 

* ^ O V 

V % A 0 ' 

5 ° ° % S' .0^ * V * c 

<* T. A *& » 

^ J> * 

O' V <B 


A V- * ' 

A V ^ ' . * * <0^ O *o . * * A <* 

^ ,0* ..‘l-./o, ^4> *d> 



'o V 






1*0 



■» O ,1 v 

’: ^ / • 

o \0 7j *■ 

-V ~^W*S A v o ->WV n ^ t. 

V *•->• y •...' f 0° ^ 

^ V c\ ,<y *» • ^ <N -«•• 

\ ^ a • 

■ f ' f7 »rJV\V2Sv//Ao c 




° O 

* «? o 





o jy 


* OpPb '- 

<, V -.' ^ * 

^ r 0^ t • 1 ' * « **b A^ S C , 

Cjr C * OP//7^?, r O A ^ • ,-C^SV „ *■ *r 

• •'«!>- ”bf ; 

^5 ^ "%H1?J‘ , , 1 ° jp v, '.v^#^//)v> «. 

,n h O ^ ^ „ r a% '*' 

0 ^ < ' OW00 ^ 0 ^ ' 1 ’ ^ A' 

0 o’ 00 ' *> \> *«V/«, cv ,<y ^v*o 

. ... _ k ^ <j. **v ^ 


4 o. 

•> > y-P «> 


,° *° ’Pi 


* a^** 

o V \N * A V 

• 4 V V* y 

> # o. »* A ^. * 

^O A ^ C 0 N ° -» ^ 


q. "'TVs* ,o 


^ T 
v oi . i ° 


* 


° C^vP 

* «? o 

<*v 

, V O. ' o . A • 'V 

0 * t • 1 V® * ^b A 0 0 “ 0 

o 


^ Ta 

•^d* 


r ■. 




y * o. 




a0 <‘1*®' > V % 4»V' 


*. 

.“ ^ V O 

"H ri* • ks a A ■' v y> <!' 

^ ' . . • S «G V 'O • * - A <A *' . • 5 % <0^ 'o 'o . A < 

<$> ^ p.V V i » ^ A V 0*0 V> _ V . / 0 

^ r, u s^/YyiZ-' ^ & • c Lc^ v % ^ (-0 t # - * o. 


* 4? ^ 




4 ,V % °. 






4°. 


y<v in 



« ^ <4- * 

^ V 


# rP & + ^ 

a9 > v* »«V' 



O v 




•* -ft. 

+ -* V"^^. 0 

°^» " ° « 0 ° A 0 

^ c\ *o <* T • °- 

•• ^ -vm-. % A* * 





• *" A <a ^ s* .o v Vv.'«>.»* A <. "vT 3 . S 

A *^ o ° ~ ° <» 0 ^ • 1 ' 6 * O A ^ c © N 0 * <$ 


o V 



« ^ vj * 

« a o • 

n ^ m 



4°* 


■» o 

*- ^o \? 0 

p ^‘‘.,,-’4 %'*“■«’'4 x- 

•' +' * *V^'. % / 

- - 


* ,fCv 

o cw4%7/>) ® • • - V 
- — 1 — -- 



OCT 1968 



cin °. V ^%) XJV / ^ ^ --WWgr^ <L' 

<\ <V ^ * 6 4 A° 

, c *'*0%*:. ° 4^ /Av ^ c ^ ° 





<> 





